Search

Background: Young adults represent a third of the United Kingdom prison population and are at risk of poor health outcomes, including drug and alcohol misuse, self-harm and suicide. Court diversion interventions aim to reduce the negative consequences of criminal sanctions and address the root causes of offending. However, evidence of their effectiveness has not yet been established. The Gateway programme, issued as a conditional caution, aimed to improve the life chances of young adults committing low-level offences. Participants agreed not to reoffend during the 16-week caution and, following a needs assessment, received individual support from a Gateway navigator and attended two workshops encouraging analysis of own behaviour and its consequences. Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of Gateway in relation to health and well-being of participants compared to usual process (court summons or a different conditional caution). Design, setting and participants: Pragmatic, multisite, parallel-group, superiority randomised controlled trial with two 6-month internal pilots and a target sample size of 334. Randomisation between Gateway and usual process was on a 1 : 1 basis. Four Hampshire Constabulary sites recruited 18- to 24-year-old residents of Hampshire and Isle of Wight who were questioned for an eligible low-level offence. Semistructured interviews were also held with a sample of Gateway programme participants, staff and police study recruiters. Main outcome measures: Primary outcome was the Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing Scale score at 12 months. Secondary outcomes included health status, alcohol and drug use, recidivism and resource use. Results: Recruitment commenced in October 2019 and the trial stopped in April 2021. A total of 191 participants were recruited, with 109 randomised to Gateway and 82 to usual process. Due to an initial overestimation of potentially eligible young people and low retention rates, recruitment targets were adjusted, and a range of mitigating measures introduced. Although recruitment broadly met study progression criteria [35/50 (70%) Pilot 1: 64/74 (86%) Pilot 2], retention was low throughout (overall: data collected at week 4 was 50%: at week 16 it was 50%: 1-year 37%). Low retention was multifactorial, with one of the main barriers being difficulties contacting participants. It was therefore not possible to complete the randomised controlled trial or the health economics analyses. Qualitative interviews held with 58 individuals yielded rare insights into the benefits and limitations of this type of intervention, as well as barriers and facilitators in relation to recruitment in this setting. Limitations: Despite close collaboration with the police to address recruitment and consent issues, expansion of the inclusion criteria and recruitment area and introducing other measures, the researchers were unable to collect sufficient data within an acceptable timeframe. Conclusions: The Gateway study was a unique endeavour to gather evidence for a potentially life-changing intervention for an underserved population. The experience gained indicates that randomised controlled trials of interventions, with a health-related outcome, are possible in this setting but point towards the need for conservative recruitment and retention estimates in this target population. Other study designs should be considered. The qualitative evaluation provided a range of valuable lessons for those seeking to design similar interventions or conduct research in similar settings. Study registration: This study is registered as ISRCTN11888938. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Public Health Research programme (NIHR award ref: 16/122/20) and is published in full in Public Health Research; Vol. 12, No. 7. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information. Plain language summary: Young adults who commit low-level offences often have many health and social needs, making them vulnerable to physical and mental health problems. The Gateway programme was a conditional caution developed to address the underlying causes of low-level offending in young people aged 18–24 years and hence improve their life chances. In Gateway, a mentor assessed the young person's needs and supported them, signposting to healthcare, housing or other services as required. The young people also participated in two workshops, analysing the causes and consequences of their behaviour. To find out if Gateway improved health and reoffending rates, a group of those who received a Gateway conditional caution were compared with a group of those receiving a court summons or a different conditional caution. Of the 191 participants recruited to the study, 109 were randomised to Gateway and 82 to the usual process. However, the researchers had significant difficulties getting hold of the study participants on the phone and they were unable to collect enough information from them to be able to say whether Gateway worked. The researchers introduced various changes to overcome this, but in the end had to stop the study early. As part of the study, the researchers interviewed 28 Gateway programme participants, 17 Gateway project staff and 13 police officers and staff who had been recruiting into the study. From the interviews the study discovered the perceived benefits of Gateway, how programmes like this could be improved and which factors helped or got in the way of doing research in the police setting. The Gateway study aimed to provide evidence for a potentially life-changing intervention for vulnerable young adults. Although it proved impossible to complete the study, the lessons learnt from running it should help colleagues design similar programmes or plan research studies with similar populations or in similar settings. Scientific summary: Background: Young adults represent a third of the United Kingdom (UK) prison population and are at risk of poor health outcomes including drug and alcohol misuse, self-harm and suicide. Those aged between 18 and 24, who have been questioned as suspects in relation to a low-level offence, may need to attend court and, if convicted, face penalties such as imprisonment. However, other means aimed at preventing young adults from reoffending exist. Court diversion interventions aim to reduce the negative consequences of some types of criminal sanctions and focus resources on addressing the root causes of offending. Although diversions are widely used in the UK, evidence of their effectiveness in terms of health outcomes has not yet been established using robust research methods. Hampshire Constabulary (HC), working with local charities, developed the Gateway programme, an out-of-court disposal aimed at improving the life chances of young adults. Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the Gateway programme issued as a conditional caution (intervention) compared to usual process (court appearance or a different conditional caution). The study objectives were to: Examine the effectiveness of the Gateway intervention on: (1) health and well-being including alcohol and substance use, (2) access to and use of health and social services and (3) quality of life, among young adult offenders. Explore the views and experiences of victims. Assess the quantity and quality of the Gateway intervention as delivered in the study and the generalisability of the findings. Identify and measure relevant consequences, both cost and benefits, of the Gateway intervention compared with usual process. Examine the effectiveness of the Gateway intervention on recidivism. Methods: Design: The study undertook a pragmatic, superiority RCT with two 6-month internal pilot phases and qualitative evaluation: an economic evaluation was planned. Participants were randomised using a 1 : 1 allocation ratio to either the Gateway conditional caution (intervention) or disposal as usual to a court summons or a different conditional caution to Gateway (usual process). The qualitative evaluation aimed to capture the experiences and perceptions of the impact of the intervention on participants, the police, victims and those delivering the intervention. Participants, setting and recruitment: Eligible participants were those aged 18–24 who had committed low-level offences and resided within Hampshire and Isle of Wight (IoW) area. Participants were recruited by Police investigators during processing for an offence. Potential participants were offered a chance by the police to receive the Gateway caution, and those interested were invited to take part in the study. Police officers obtained Stage 1 consent and carried out an eligibility check, after which those eligible were automatically randomised to receive either a Gateway caution or follow the usual process, such as court appearance or a different conditional caution. Qualitative interviews were undertaken with trial participants, police officers and those delivering the intervention. Sample size: There is no widely accepted and established minimal clinically significant difference for the primary outcome, Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing Scale (WEMWBS). A change of three or more points is likely to be important to individuals. There is also variation in the standard deviation (SD) of the WEMWBS with estimates ranging from 6 to 10.8 with the pooled estimate of 10 across all studies. Assuming 90% power, 5% 2-sided statistical significance, mean difference of 4 points on WEMWBS and a SD of 10, 266 participants were required. Conservatively, assuming a 20% attrition rate, the study aimed to recruit and randomise 334 participants. Interventions: The Gateway programme, issued as a conditional caution, required participants to undertake a health and social care needs assessment, attend workshops encouraging analysis of their behaviour and its consequences, and agree not to reoffend during the 16-week caution. Usual process was disposal to a court summons or an alternative conditional caution. Outcomes: The primary outcome measure was the WEMWBS. Participants self-reported WEMWBS at 4-weeks, 16-weeks and 1-year post-randomisation. Secondary outcomes were health status [Short Form 12 questionnaire (SF-12)]; alcohol [Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT)] and drug [Adolescent Drug Involvement Scale (ADIS)] use; type and frequency of reoffending (police data); and health and social care resource use (self-reported). Statistical methods: The original plan, pre-specified in version 1.0 of the SAP , was to carry out a repeated measures, mixed-effects linear regression model with the WEMWBS score at 4-weeks, 16-weeks and 1-year post-randomisation as the dependent variable, adjusting for treatment group, time, group by time interaction, total number of records management system incidents and police national computer convictions 1-year prerandomisation, age at randomisation, Index of Multiple Deprivation quintile at randomisation, pandemic time period and standard of usual process available as fixed effects. Recruiting site was to be adjusted for as a random effect. However, due to the study closing early because of issues with retaining participants, a descriptive analysis was undertaken with no formal hypothesis testing. All outcomes were summarised descriptively by a randomised treatment group. Qualitative evaluation: A qualitative evaluation was conducted to assess the implementation of the Gateway programme, including any related issues and observed benefits to the clients. Focusing on implementation, mechanisms and context, the research questions were: How is Gateway being implemented? What are the barriers to the implementation and effects of the Gateway programme? What are the mechanisms through which the intervention brings about change? How do different delivery methods (face-to-face/virtual/telephone) influence the above questions? We conducted qualitative interviews and focus groups with a range of stakeholders across three time periods during the implementation of the Gateway programme. Economic evaluation: A formal health economic analysis was not feasible. Health economic data are summarised descriptively with the trial data. Results: Randomised controlled trial: We recruited 191 participants; 109 were randomised to Gateway and 82 to usual process. Although recruitment rates were within acceptable limits, the number of participants providing data [94 (32%) at week 4; 95 (34%) at week 16; 43 (28%) at 1-year] was insufficient to undertake any formal hypothesis testing and the trial was closed early. The groups were generally well balanced in terms of characteristics and percentage providing data, but more of those providing valid data had a previous conviction than those who did not provide data. Similar percentages from each arm provided data with those attending interviews completing all sections. Telephone interviews were acceptable to those willing to share an active telephone number. Rates for those who were non-contactable were similar between the groups at all three time points. Eighty-one of the 101 allocated to Gateway complied with the intervention. Reasons for non-compliance were reoffending and non-attendance at the LINX workshops. Qualitative evaluation: Across 3 time points, 69 in-depth interviews were conducted with: 28 young people, 25 Gateway staff, 13 police recruiters and 3 focus groups with navigators. The researchers were unable to pursue interviews with victims as there were few offences with a victim. Our findings showed that, following engagement with the Gateway programme, young people reported being better able to make decisions after engagement with the LINX workshops, while navigators played a significant role in enabling compliance and change among young people. The role of the navigator was akin to that of the mentor, providing practical support towards improved health including, for example, making and attending doctors' appointments with clients, as well as offering a listening role. Young people felt that, for them, the wider determinants (or 'areas') addressed with navigators, such as access to employment or improved health, were of greater importance than a reduction in reoffending. There was a polarity of needs among young people, which meant that all stakeholders valued the ability to tailor and adapt the programme to individual client's needs, also giving clients a sense of agency and control over their lives. The independence of the Gateway intervention team, from the police, was highly valued by young people. Factors related to communication were a concern for all, particular at the point of recruitment (by police) and between multiple delivery agencies. Discussion: The problems encountered throughout this trial and the researchers' endeavours to overcome these problems provide valuable insights for colleagues seeking to design similar interventions and/or conduct studies with vulnerable populations in the police setting. Co-production is essential for studies in the police setting. By working in close collaboration with HC , and their two project dedicated officers, the researchers were able to make pragmatic adjustments to the study design as issues arose. However, training an entire police force is fraught with difficulty even when supported by senior officers; competing interests precluded mandatory training for research purposes. The use of a two-stage consent process and a web-based eligibility and randomisation tool facilitate recruitment in the police setting, but frequent, regular need to use is required to maintain the study profile. Young people who have committed an offence are known to be a difficult group to engage with generally, let alone in research. The study identified and tested implementation of different approaches to overcome this problem. Switching to telephone interviews produced a positive response. Persistence and engagement paid off, but the study was unable to solve the problem of inactive mobile telephone numbers; an issue shared by the navigators and police. Independence of those delivering the intervention is important as perceived links with the police caused some disengagement. The collected data provide valuable information on attrition rates for health studies. Interestingly, allocation did not appear to make any difference to participation. The study's qualitative evaluation highlighted the unmet health needs for this group of 18- to 24-year-olds, and the need to address the wider determinants of reoffending through individualised assessment. The Gateway programme was, however, developed for those with higher needs, which meant that flexibility and adaptability to suit individual needs was essential. It further highlighted the invaluable role of mentors in rehabilitative programmes such as Gateway. The study has demonstrated that it is possible to recruit and randomise to a RCT in the police setting. The data that the study presents should be used to inform the planning of future trials, including anticipated attrition rates, and setting conservative targets for retention as well as recruitment rates. Internal pilots should be long enough to confirm recruitment and data collection rates are achievable over an adequate follow-up period. Given the challenges encountered, alternative study designs should be considered for the evaluation of interventions with a health-related outcome. These include: cluster RCTs where processes at individual cluster sites could be simplified; post hoc cohort studies which may address non-response and attrition bias; and regression discontinuity design (RDD), a quasi-experimental approach at lower risk of bias which has the potential to equate to a RCT. Conclusions: This ambitious RCT and qualitative study provides information about an out-of-court intervention aimed at improving life chances, health and well-being and recidivism in young adults. Challenges encountered in participation and retention in this setting and the ways in which these may be addressed are described and will be useful in planning future research. Study registration: This study is registered as ISRCTN11888938. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Public Health Research programme (NIHR award ref: 16/122/20) and is published in full in Public Health Research; Vol. 12, No. 7. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Dupuytren’s contracture is caused by nodules and cords which pull the fingers towards the palm of the hand. Treatments include limited fasciectomy surgery, collagenase injection and needle fasciotomy. There is limited evidence comparing limited fasciectomy with collagenase injection. Objectives To compare whether collagenase injection is not inferior to limited fasciectomy when treating Dupuytren’s contracture. Design Pragmatic, two-arm, unblinded, randomised controlled non-inferiority trial with a cost-effectiveness evaluation and nested qualitative and photographic substudies. Setting Thirty-one National Health Service hospitals in England and Scotland. Participants Patients with Dupuytren’s contracture of ≥ 30 degrees who had not received previous treatment in the same digit. Interventions Collagenase injection with manipulation 1–7 days later was compared with limited fasciectomy. Main outcome measures The primary outcome was the Patient Evaluation Measure score, with 1 year after treatment serving as the primary end point. A difference of 6 points in the primary end point was used as the non-inferiority margin. Secondary outcomes included: Unité Rhumatologique des Affections de la Main scale; Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire; recurrence; extension deficit and total active movement; further care/re-intervention; complications; quality-adjusted life-year; resource use; and time to function recovery. Randomisation and blinding Online central randomisation, stratified by the most affected joint, and with variable block sizes allocates participants 1 : 1 to collagenase or limited fasciectomy. Participants and clinicians were not blind to treatment allocation. Results Between 31 July 2017 and 28 September 2021, 672 participants were recruited (n = 336 per group), of which 599 participants contributed to the primary outcome analysis (n = 285 limited fasciectomy; n = 314 collagenase). At 1 year (primary end point) there was little evidence to support rejection of the hypothesis that collagenase is inferior to limited fasciectomy. The difference in Patient Evaluation Measure score at 1 year was 5.95 (95% confidence interval 3.12 to 8.77; p = 0.49), increasing to 7.18 (95% confidence interval 4.18 to 10.88) at 2 years. The collagenase group had more complications (n = 267, 0.82 per participant) than the limited fasciectomy group (n = 177, 0.60 per participant), but limited fasciectomy participants had a greater proportion of ‘moderate’/‘severe’ complications (5% vs. 2%). At least 54 participants (15.7%) had contracture recurrence and there was weak evidence suggesting that collagenase participants recurred more often than limited fasciectomy participants (odds ratio 1.39, 95% confidence interval 0.74 to 2.63). At 1 year, collagenase had an insignificantly worse quality-adjusted life-year gain (−0.003, 95% confidence interval −0.006 to 0.0004) and a significant cost saving (−£1090, 95% confidence interval −£1139 to −£1042) than limited fasciectomy with the probability of collagenase being cost-effective exceeding 99% at willingness to pay thresholds of £20,000–£30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year. At 2 years, collagenase was both significantly less effective (−0.048, 95% confidence interval −0.055 to −0.040) and less costly (−£1212, 95% confidence interval −£1276 to −£1147). The probability of collagenase being cost-effective was 72% at the £20,000 threshold but limited fasciectomy became the optimal treatment at thresholds over £25,488. The Markov model found the probability of collagenase being cost-effective at the lifetime horizon dropped below 22% at thresholds over £20,000. Semistructured qualitative interviews found that those treated with collagenase considered the outcome to be acceptable, though not perfect. The photography substudy found poor agreement between goniometry and both participant and clinician taken photographs, even after accounting for systematic differences from each method. Limitations Impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in longer waits for Dupuytren’s contracture treatment, meaning some participants could not be followed up for 2 years. This resulted in potential underestimation of Dupuytren’s contracture recurrence and/or re-intervention rates, which may particularly have impacted the clinical effectiveness and long-term Markov model findings. Conclusions Among adults with Dupuytren’s contracture, collagenase delivered in an outpatient setting is less effective but more cost-saving than limited fasciectomy. Further research is required to establish the longer-term implications of both treatments. Future work Recurrence and re-intervention usually occur after 1 year, and therefore follow-up to 5 years or more could resolve whether the differences observed in the Dupuytren’s interventions surgery versus collagenase trial to 2 years worsen. Study registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN18254597. Funding This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 15/102/04) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 78. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information. Plain language summary Dupuytren’s contracture happens when fibrous tissue builds up and over time bends the finger(s) into the palm, causing problems with hand function. To treat this, surgery is usually used to straighten the finger. A less intrusive alternative is an injection (collagenase), which softens the tissue after which the finger is moved to straighten it. The Dupuytren's interventions surgery versus collagenase trial recruited 672 patients who were equally and randomly assigned to have either surgery or collagenase injection. The study assessed whether the injection was as good and as safe as surgery at straightening the finger and how long the finger remained straightened. For up to 2 years after treatment, the participant’s hand function and general health were assessed. Some participants provided photographs to monitor changes to the finger, and some were asked about their experiences of Dupuytren’s contracture and treatments. We found: Hand health improved following both treatments. Initially, the injection treatment improved hand health more than surgery. However, by 1 year, surgery improved hand health more than the injection treatment. Recovery of hand function was quicker for participants who received the injection; however, they were more likely to need further treatment (i.e. further care and/or re-intervention). Participants said that the less positive longer-term outcome was acceptable for a better treatment experience. For both treatments, interviews found that participants were happy with the hand improvement they experienced at 3 months after treatment. More than half of participants had no complications, moderate or severe complications were rare, and participants who had surgery had more of these. The injection was cheaper but less effective than surgery at 1 year and was considered good value for money. However, by 2 years surgery became the better option due to its greater improvement in health benefits. Participant-taken photographs can help monitor Dupuytren’s contracture but do not give the same results as measurements taken in a clinic. Scientific summary Background Dupuytren’s disease affects over 2 million UK adults. Cords pull the fingers down towards the palm. This interferes with hand function and dexterity, impacting on quality of life. Current treatments to remove, dissolve or break the cords include surgical correction [limited fasciectomy (LF)], collagenase injection (an enzyme injected into the cord), and percutaneous needle fasciotomy (a needle is used to puncture, weaken and cut the cord). None of these treatments cure the tendency to develop Dupuytren’s contracture (DC) and so the cords and contracture can recur over time. Collagenase has some benefits over LF surgery including shorter recovery and no dependence on operating theatre availability for delivery of the intervention. There is, however, limited robust evidence comparing surgical correction and collagenase injection in terms of clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and in terms of patient’s experiences and preferences. Objectives The primary objective was to compare whether collagenase injection is not inferior to LF in the treatment of DC. Secondary objectives included investigation of recurrence at 1 and 2 years after treatment and cost-effectiveness. A qualitative substudy explored patients’ views of collagenase and LF, and a photography substudy investigated whether measurements of extension and flexion made on photographs taken by patients reflect goniometric measurements to assess recurrence. Methods Design The Dupytren's interventions surgery vs collagenase (DISC) trial was a multicentre, pragmatic, parallel two-arm randomised controlled non-inferiority trial with a cost-effectiveness evaluation, and nested qualitative and photography substudies. Participants were randomised on an equal basis to receive either of the two treatment options via a remote randomisation service. Randomisation was blocked, with randomly varying block sizes, and stratified by reference (worst-affected) joint [metacarpophalangeal (MCP) joint or proximal interphalangeal (PIP) joint]. Participants were followed up at 3 months, 6 months, 1 year and 2 years after treatment. Data collection included joint measurements and photography at baseline, and all follow-up time points. Setting Trial recruitment was undertaken in 31 NHS hand units across England and Scotland between June 2017 and September 2021. Participants Patients aged 18 years and over with a discrete, palpable Dupuytren’s cord causing contracture of ≥ 30 degrees and who were appropriate for both study treatments, were eligible for inclusion. Patients were excluded if they had severe contractures (> 135 degrees); had received treatment to the study digit; had other pre-existing disorders affecting hand function; had contraindications to collagenase; had a coagulation disorder; were female and pregnant or breastfeeding; had participated in a study involving another investigational medicinal product within 12 weeks or had another disease or disorder which would put them at risk if participating. Interventions The intervention was collagenase Clostridium histolyticum injection, supplied through routine NHS stocks. Collagenase was injected as three aliquots at set anatomical points in line with the current approved summary of product characteristics. After an interval of 1–7 days, participants returned to the clinic, where under local anaesthetic the cord was snapped to correct the contracture. The control group received LF surgery to remove the diseased nodules and cord to correct the contracture. Participants were followed up at routine wound check appointments following intervention. Outcomes The primary outcome was the Patient Evaluation Measure (PEM) score (0–100 with higher scores indicating worse outcome) at 1 year after treatment. The PEM was also completed at 3 months, 6 months and 2 years after treatment. Secondary outcomes included the Unité Rhumatologique des Affections de la Main (URAM) scale, Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire (MHQ), recurrence, extension deficit and total active movement, complications, further treatments (including further care and/or re-intervention), health-related quality of life [EuroQol-5 Dimensions, five-level version (EQ-5D-5L)], resource use, time to recovery of function (using a single assessment numeric evaluation measure) and overall hand assessment. All outcomes were collected at 3 months, 6 months, 1 year and 2 years. The PEM was also recollected immediately prior to treatment delivery, and the time to recover function and quality of life were also collected at 2 and 6 weeks after treatment. Outcomes were collected primarily in hospital clinics, with some participants being followed up for postal, telephone, or video data collection during the COVID-19 pandemic. The qualitative substudy explored participants experiences of DC and treatments. The photography substudy explored the agreement between measurements obtained using a goniometer and photographs taken by participants at home, to determine whether the two methods of measurement might feasibly be used interchangeably. Results Clinical effectiveness In total 672 participants (64.6%) were recruited and randomised; 336 to receive collagenase injection and 336 to receive LF. Baseline characteristics were similar across groups. Of the 672 randomised participants, 621 (92.4%) received treatment as part of the trial. Cross-over was limited: one participant (0.3%) allocated to collagenase received LF; seven participants allocated to LF received collagenase (2.1%). On average participants received collagenase by 12.1 weeks [standard deviation (SD) 13.7] and LF in 17.7 weeks (SD 16.5) after randomisation. Most participants (n = 315, 95.2%) had just one digit treated. No participants required an unplanned inpatient admission following treatment and 62.0% (n = 201) collagenase participants and 78.3% (n = 224) LF participants had full correction following treatment. At 1 year (primary time-point) the difference in PEM scores showed that collagenase was inferior to LF; difference 5.95 [95% confidence interval (CI) 3.12 to 8.77; p = 0.49]. The benefit of LF over collagenase continued to increase to 2 years (7.18, 95% CI 4.18 to 10.88; p = 0.82). There were no material changes in these results for any of the sensitivity or additional analyses undertaken. The primary analysis therefore shows that there is little evidence to support rejection of the hypothesis that collagenase is inferior to LF at 1 and 2 years post treatment. Indeed, the observed data are highly compatible with LF being superior to collagenase with regard to the primary outcome measure at both these time points. Patient Evaluation Measure overall assessment scores corresponded with the primary outcome analyses and participants in both groups reported positive experiences of treatment. The estimated difference in URAM scores followed those of PEM, increasing in favour of LF over time from 3 months (0.82, 95% CI −0.21 to 1.84; p = 0.12) to 5.37 (95% CI 3.85 to 6.88; p ≤ 0.00005) at 2 years. At 1 year MHQ scores were higher (better) in the LF group (1 year: −4.69, 95% CI −7.27 to −2.12; p = 0.0004) and this continued at 2 years (2 years: −6.71, 95% CI −9.60 to −3.82; p ≤ 0.00005). Return to function was better in the short term for the collagenase group (week 2: 14.93, 95% CI 11.66 to 18.19; p ≤ 0.00005; 6 weeks: 5.00, 95% CI 2.29 to 7.70; p = 0.003) but by 1 year function was superior after LF (−4.93, 95% CI −7.63 to −2.22; p = 0.0004). At 1 year participants who received LF were more likely to respond as being ‘cured’ or ‘much better’ than participants who received collagenase [odds ratio (OR) 3.01, 95% 2.15 to 4.23; p ≤ 0.00005]. Passive extension deficit was similar between the groups at baseline (mean: 45.8°; SD 17.0). Following collagenase treatment, extension deficit seemed to be worse at all time points ranging from a difference of 5.73° (95% CI 2.88 to 8.59; p = 0.0001) at 3 months to 10.10° (95% CI 6.46 to 13.73; p ≤ 0.00005) at 1 year and increasing again up to 2 years. Results when imputed data were included were similar. Increases in reference joint passive range of movement (RoM) were similar between the two groups following treatment. However, from 6 months there was strong evidence that collagenase resulted in poorer passive RoM (−7.42°, 95% CI −11.54 to −3.29; p = 0.0004) and this difference increased further over time. Measurements of active extension deficit were similar between the two groups at baseline (mean: 51.9°, SD 16.1). Like passive extension deficit, active extension deficit was worse following collagenase treatment at all time points, ranging from a difference at 3 months of 5.57° (95% CI 3.02 to 8.12; p ≤ 0.00005) to 11.52° (95% CI 8.13 to 14.91; p

Trial design Randomised, multicentre, double-blind crossover trial (with 2 × 16-week periods) of active neurostimulation versus sham stimulation with subsequent open-label follow-up to 58 weeks. Embedded mechanistic sub-study using magnetoencephalography to study bidirectional functional connectivity between brain and anorectum. Methods Participants: adults aged 18–80 years, with chronic symptoms of faecal incontinence refractory to first-line treatments (and meeting national criteria for sacral neuromodulation). Interventions: active: chronic, subsensory (low amplitude) stimulation of a mixed sacral nerve (usually S3) using a commercially available surgically implanted pulse generator; sham: identical implant but turned off (or to 0.05 V). Patient-chosen sub- or supra-sensory open-label stimulation from week 32 to week 58. Primary objectives: (1) to determine whether sub-sensory sacral neuromodulation led to a reduction in total faecal incontinence episodes per week compared to sham stimulation; (2) to identify whether clinical responses to sub-sensory sacral neuromodulation were biologically related to changes in evoked and induced activity between the brain and anorectum. Primary outcome: total faecal incontinence episodes per week based on paper bowel diary performed in the final 4 weeks of each crossover period (allowing 12-week washout). Randomised allocation (1 : 1) to arm 1 (sacral neuromodulation/sham) or arm 2 (sham/sacral neuromodulation) at time of surgery was stratified by sex and centre. Blinding: participants, surgeons and assessors; tamper-proof tape masked stimulation settings. Statistical methods: Poisson regression models failed to converge for the count outcomes, hence paired t-tests were used, and treatment effects summarised by mean differences [with 95% confidence intervals (CIs)]. Sample size: a total of 90 patients (45 per group) were required to detect a 30% reduction in episodes, allowing for 10% loss to follow-up (alpha = 0.05; power 90%). Results Recruitment: a total of 39 patients of 220 screened and 65 pre-enrolled (arm 1: N = 17; arm 2: N = 22) were recruited to the crossover trial at nine sites from the United Kingdom and one site from Ireland between February 2018 and July 2022, of whom only 16 (arm 1: N = 9; arm 2: N = 7) had complete primary outcome data. Nineteen completed follow-up to 58 weeks. Trial delivery was severely affected and terminated early due to COVID-19. Main barriers were the inability to continue face-to-face patient visits, redeployment of research staff to COVID-19 facing clinical roles and cancelling of sacral neuromodulation procedures due to lack of priority for non-urgent surgery. A total of 25 patients underwent magnetoencephalography studies compared to 20 healthy volunteers. Primary outcome (N = 16): sacral neuromodulation conferred a non-significant reduction in mean faecal incontinence episodes per week compared to sham (−0.7, 95% CI −1.5 to 0.0; p = 0.06). Secondary outcomes: in participants who also used the e-event recorder to record the number of faecal incontinence episodes in both periods (n = 7), estimate of effect size was greater but less precise (−1.5, −3.5 to +0.5; p = 0.12). Data suggested successful allocation concealment. Improvements were observed in faecal incontinence symptoms in the follow-up cohort (at 58 weeks) compared to baseline (approx. 3 fewer faecal incontinence episodes per week). A small number of expected adverse events all resolved. Magnetoencephalography studies demonstrated bidirectional afferent evoked cortical and efferent induced anal activity that did not vary greatly from control subjects (n = 20) and appeared unchanged by sacral neuromodulation. Conclusions Due to under-recruitment it is important to interpret the findings on the experimental efficacy of sacral neuromodulation as exploratory. Effects on symptoms observed during double-blinded crossover point to some efficacy over sham, though not large in comparison with placebo responses. The magnitude of effect was highly dependent on method and interpretation of event recording. Study registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN98760715. Funding This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation (EME) programme (NIHR award ref: 14/144/08) and is published in full in Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation; Vol. 11, No. 19. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information. Plain language summary A treatment called sacral neuromodulation is commonly offered to adults experiencing bowel (faecal) incontinence. A battery powered unit is implanted into the lower back in the region of the sacrum (tailbone). This is connected to a specially developed lead with electrodes that rest on the nerves of the lower spine. This stimulator then continuously sends electrical impulses to the nerves and muscles that control the lower bowel (rectum and anus). The aim is to improve bowel control. Previous studies have reported a great benefit of sacral neuromodulation in some patients, but others have little or no response. The SUBsensory Sacral Neuromodulation for InContinence trial recruited 39 patients (of 90 intended) who met the current national criteria for sacral neuromodulation. It compared the effect on numbers of weekly faecal incontinence episodes with the device either on (active) or off (sham) using a special study design called a randomised crossover trial. All participants had the device on and off for 16 weeks in random order (crossing over in the middle). Using stimulation below the level that can be felt (subsensory), both the patients and the research team were unaware of whether the stimulator was on or off (called double blinding). Due to COVID-19, only 16 patients had complete data for analysis, which was much less than the intended number of 90. The results showed that patients experienced reductions in faecal incontinence episodes during both on and off periods (i.e. there was a strong placebo effect). However, slightly greater effects were seen during the on period suggesting a possible genuine biological effect of sacral neuromodulation. The study also showed that the way we record symptoms during research trials for example with paper bowel diaries needs improvement, as the bowel diaries were not fully completed by some participants. Although this is the first double-blind trial of its kind for sacral neuromodulation, all conclusions must bear in mind the poor recruitment and retention of patients. Scientific summary Background Faecal incontinence (FI), defined as the recurrent involuntary loss of faecal material leading to a social or hygienic problem, is a common and debilitating condition with profound effects on quality-of-life and high societal costs. Initial treatments including pharmacological and behavioural therapies (e.g. biofeedback) have variable outcomes and are poorly evidenced. Traditional surgical approaches focusing on anal sphincter reconstruction or augmentation are invasive, irreversible, and risk significant morbidity. A stoma is the final option. Chronic low-amplitude stimulation of the mixed sacral spinal nerves using an implanted electrode and pulse generator – sacral neuromodulation (SNM) is a less invasive alternative, now considered the first-line surgical treatment option for adults with FI in whom non-operative therapies have failed to alleviate symptoms. Current evidence for SNM is based on extensive observational data and few randomised trials that are heterogeneous in design and outcomes. Despite having widespread regulatory approval, SNM remains an expensive intervention with need for greater confidence in efficacy. A further concern regarding SNM therapy is the lack of evidence and understanding of the mechanism of any effect. Objectives Our primary aim was to determine the clinical efficacy of sub-sensory chronic low voltage electrical SNM using a commercially-available implantable device in adults with FI in whom conservative treatment has failed. We sought to determine whether SNM, compared to sham, led to a clinically important reduction in weekly FI episodes. The study also included mechanistic studies to examine whether clinical responses to sub-sensory SNM were biologically related to changes in the central pathway between the brain and anorectum. Methods Trial design SUBsensory Sacral Neuromodulation for InContinence (SUBSoNIC) was a multicentre, randomised double-blind crossover trial at nine UK sites and one site in Ireland in which SNM was compared to sham stimulation. We aimed to randomise 90 eligible participants (adults aged 18–80 years, where non-surgical approaches to National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) standard have failed and meeting minimum FI severity criterion) to two study arms after SNM implantation. Both arms had two intervention periods (ON-OFF or OFF-ON) of 16-week duration (T0–T16 and T16–T32). Efficacy outcomes were derived from assessments in the final 4 weeks of each cross-over period (T12–T16 and T28–T32) thus allowing for almost 3 months intervention before outcome assessments (and adequate washout for participants in the ON–OFF sequence). Mechanistic studies were performed in the final 2 weeks of the 4-week assessment periods in a subgroup of consecutively consenting participants from both arms until data saturation. After completing the crossover phase of the study, participants were followed up for a further 26 weeks. During this time, participants had either sub- or supra-sensory ‘open label’ stimulation based on preference as would have been normal for routine clinical practice. Further efficacy outcomes were recorded at T54–T58 to provide an indication of the short-term effectiveness of SNM within the rigor of a clinical trial unit (CTU)-monitored prospective study. Interventions Chronic low voltage stimulation of the third or fourth sacral root was achieved by surgical implantation of a commercially available Conformité Européenne-marked active implantable (class III) medical device [Medtronic InterStimTM (Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN, USA)] used in accord with the manufacturer’s instructions and local practice. For the active intervention (ON), the clinical team programmed the device using standard settings of a 14-Hz frequency and 210-µs pulse width. Optimal electrode configuration was determined by cumulatively increasing the amplitude of stimulation by 0.1 V from zero for each electrode until the sensory threshold was reached. The amplitude and site of stimulation were recorded for each electrode with the electrode configuration that achieved sensation in the anus or perineum at lowest amplitude being chosen for chronic stimulation. Sub-sensory chronic stimulation was initiated by reducing the amplitude to a level just below the habituated sensory threshold (for blinding). For the sham intervention (OFF), sensory thresholds were recorded identically; however, the level was then adjusted to zero volts or 0.05 V (the latter was required in some participants due to the new device handset limitations). Mechanistic studies were undertaken at the Institute of Health and Neurodevelopment (IHN) at Aston University in a subgroup of patients identified in the Midlands region (compared to 20 healthy volunteers without FI). A protocol including spatial registration (magnetic resonance imaging head) and a series of magnetoencephalographic (MEG) acquisitions measured induced and evoked cortical activity relevant to determining functional connectivity between the anus and brain (using anal electrical stimulation) and brain and anorectum (using volitional anal squeeze). Control paradigms (tibial nerve stimulation and fist clench) were used respectively. Outcomes The primary clinical outcome was reduction in FI events per week (recorded on paper bowel diaries over a 4-week period) in SNM versus sham phase of crossover (16 and 32 weeks). Secondary clinical outcomes including other bowel diary measures, e-event recording and a panel of summative questionnaires were recorded at 16, 32 and 58 weeks. Mechanistic outcomes included spatial localisation, relative cortical source signal strength and latencies of evoked and induced responses. Allocation and blinding Randomised allocation (1 : 1) to group 1 (SNM/sham) or group 2 (sham/SNM) was performed at the time of surgery using an online randomisation system managed by the Pragmatic Clinical Trials Unit at QMUL, with a randomisation list generated by an independent statistician to ensure allocation concealment. Randomisation was stratified by sex and centre with block sizes of four. Members of the research team, statisticians, surgeons who performed the surgical procedure, and participants were blinded to intervention status (SNM or sham). Participants were informed of the allocation ratio of 1 : 1 and that blinding prevented them from knowing in which group they were participating. Tamper-proof tape was used to mask stimulation settings. Sample size and statistics The study was designed to detect a mean 30% reduction between SNM and sham stimulation in FI event rate (ratio 0.7). At 90% power and 5% significance level with a cross-over design this required 90 participants (45 per group), allowing for 10% loss to follow-up. The pre-specified analysis for the primary outcome involved a mixed Poisson regression applied to the counts of FI events, with fixed effects of cross-over period and stratification factors, a random effect of individual, and a random effect of period within individual (the latter to allow for an over-dispersed Poisson distribution). When it came to the analysis, owing in part to the small numbers, the Poisson regression models did not converge for the count outcomes. Instead we applied a paired t-test to the FI rates in order to estimate the difference between SNM and sham with a 95% confidence interval and p-value. Results Clinical results The COVID-19 pandemic had a major effect on trial recruitment and patient retention. The trial was terminated on 24 July 2022 with just 39 patients randomised. Trial delivery was severely affected and terminated early due to COVID-19. Main barriers were the inability to continue face-to-face patient visits, redeployment of research staff to COVID-19 facing clinical roles and cancelling of SNM procedures due to lack of priority for non-urgent surgery. In total, 220 patients were screened for eligibility at nine sites from the UK and one site from Ireland between February 2018 and July 2022. Of these, 155 patients declined study participation or were ineligible due to study specific exclusion criteria. A total of 65 patients were pre-enrolled and consented to the study, of whom 26 did not meet the baseline minimum frequency criteria of FI episodes per week or did not receive an implant. The remaining 39 patients were randomised (arm 1: N = 17; arm 2: N = 22); however, only 16 completed the primary outcome during both cross-over periods (arm 1: N = 9; arm 2: N = 7). The remaining 23 participants withdrew from the study (N = 12), were excluded on the basis of problems of eligibility (N = 5) or did not complete the primary outcome data (N = 6: still included in the cohort follow-up phase). A total of 22 participants started the cohort follow-up phase, although 3 of these participants did not complete the final follow-up visit, leaving 19 participants for the 1-year effectiveness assessment. There were no major differences at baseline between allocated groups. As predicted, about 90% participants were female with mean age about 57 years. Almost all participants reported symptoms of urgency, combined with varying combinations of passive and urge FI. All participants reported previous conservative management for their FI symptoms (as per NICE guidance). Numbers of FI events at baseline were concordant with design assumptions (based on approx. seven events in a 1-week period). Median St Mark’s incontinence score was 19 in both groups, indicating severe symptoms (max score 24). E-event recordings were only undertaken by a minority (14/39) of participants. Test stimulation was performed using a tined lead in 68.6% participants. General anaesthesia was used in 70.6% of procedures and median operating time was 36 minutes (range 30–55 minutes). The lead was positioned in foramina S3 in most participants (91.4%) with some variations in fidelity of siting based on individual electrode responses (only 50% lead placements achieved the ideal published standard of motor or sensory responses for three electrodes

Background Hand eczema is common and a cause of morbidity and occupational disability. When education, irritant/contact allergen avoidance, moisturisation and topical corticosteroids are insufficient to control chronic hand eczema, ultraviolet therapy or systemic immune-modifying drugs are used. There is no treatment pathway generally accepted by UK dermatologists. Primary objective Compare alitretinoin and ultraviolet therapy as first-line therapy in terms of disease activity at 12 weeks post planned start of treatment. Design Prospective, multicentre, open-label, two-arm parallel group, adaptive randomised controlled trial with one planned interim analysis, and an economic evaluation. Setting UK secondary care dermatology outpatient clinics. Participants Patients with severe chronic hand eczema unresponsive to at least 4 weeks of treatment with potent topical corticosteroids. Primary end point Natural logarithm of the Hand Eczema Severity Index + 1, 12 weeks post planned start of treatment. Randomisation Participants randomised 1 : 1 by minimisation to alitretinoin or ultraviolet therapy for 12 to 24 weeks. Blinding Blinded primary end-point assessor. Results Intention-to-treat population: 441 (100.0%) participants; 220 (49.9%) alitretinoin and 221 (50.1%) ultraviolet therapy. At least one dose was received by 212 (96.4%) alitretinoin and 196 (88.7%) ultraviolet therapy participants. Primary outcome The unadjusted median (interquartile range) relative change in hand eczema severity index at 12 weeks was 30% (10–70%) of that at baseline for alitretinoin compared with 50% (20–100%) for ultraviolet therapy. There was a statistically significant benefit of alitretinoin compared with ultraviolet therapy at 12 weeks, with an estimated fold change or relative difference (95% confidence interval) = 0.66 (0.52 to 0.82), p = 0.0003 at 12 weeks. There was no evidence of a difference at 24 or 52 weeks, with the estimated fold change (95% confidence interval) equal to 0.92 (0.798 to 1.08) and 1.27 (0.97 to 1.67), respectively. Primary analysis results were consistent for secondary end points Fifty-nine per cent allocated to alitretinoin and 61% allocated to ultraviolet therapy achieved a clear/almost clear assessment during the trial period. Differential treatment compliance observed: 145 (65.9%) alitretinoin and 53 (24.0%) ultraviolet therapy participants confirmed compliance (≥ 80% received, no treatment breaks > 7 days during first 12 weeks). High levels of missing data were observed. Safety One hundred and thirty-five reportable adverse events across 79 participants, 55 (25.0%) alitretinoin and 24 (10.9%) ultraviolet therapy. Four serious adverse events (two alitretinoin, two ultraviolet therapy). Four pregnancies reported (three alitretinoin, one ultraviolet therapy). No new safety signals were detected. Conclusion As a first-line therapy, alitretinoin showed more rapid improvement and superiority to ultraviolet therapy at week 12. This difference was not observed at later time points. Alitretinoin is cost-effective at weeks 12 and 52. Ultraviolet therapy is cost-effective after 10 years, with a high degree of uncertainty. Hand eczema severity index may be a useful primary outcome measure for hand eczema trials; ALPHA results will inform future trials. Limitations Treatment compliance was poor for ultraviolet therapy. Regular twice weekly treatment was not received by most patients. Assessment of long-term effects of randomised treatments was complicated by use of second-line treatments post treatment phase. Further work Further analysis of substudies and pilot data will provide valuable information for future studies. A clear need for better therapeutic approaches for severe chronic hand eczema remains. Future studies will need to further address long-term benefits of treatments given. Trial registration This trial is registered as ISRCTN80206075. Funding This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 12/186/01) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 59. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information. Plain language summary What was the question? The main question was which treatment was better at easing symptoms of severe hand eczema after 12 weeks. The two treatments compared were ones used most often by UK dermatologists. The first is a tablet called alitretinoin, which is taken once a day. The second is called ultraviolet therapy, where hands are soaked in a special liquid and placed under ultraviolet light twice a week at a hospital. What did we do? We treated 220 patients with alitretinoin and 221 patients with ultraviolet therapy. Patients received treatment for 12 to 24 weeks depending on how well their hand eczema responded. Patients could have different treatments afterwards, and we collected information on their hand eczema symptoms for up to 1 year. What did we find? After 12 weeks, severe hand eczema symptoms improved for both groups of patients but improved most for patients who took alitretinoin. However, 1 year after joining the trial, there was no evidence of a difference between alitretinoin and ultraviolet therapy as a first-line treatment. More patients stopped ultraviolet therapy early compared with patients who received alitretinoin. Different treatments may have been prescribed after the first treatment. What does this mean? Alitretinoin provides a convenient, instant relief or a ‘quick fix’ for patients with severe hand eczema. Alitretinoin is more convenient for lots of people, but it is important to have other options available for people who would prefer not to, or are unable to, take alitretinoin. For example, people who take alitretinoin can experience unwanted side effects, and people who are able to become pregnant must also use contraception. Long-term control of severe hand eczema is important. Individual discussions on the pros and cons of each treatment for hand eczema symptoms is needed. Providing flexible options to attend ultraviolet therapy appointments could be helpful (e.g. weekend/evenings). Scientific summary Background Hand eczema (HE) is common and an important cause of morbidity and occupational disability. One-year prevalence of HE is up to 10% in the general population, with 5–7% developing chronic hand eczema (CHE). Current evidence is not compelling enough to guide clinical practice. When patient education, irritant/contact allergen avoidance, moisturisation and topical corticosteroids are insufficient to control CHE, ultraviolet therapy (PUVA) or systemic immune-modifying drugs are used. There is no treatment pathway generally accepted among UK dermatologists. Most UK dermatology centres use phototherapy (mostly Immersion PUVA) or alitretinoin as first-line treatment for uncontrolled CHE. ALPHA is the first trial comparing alitretinoin with Immersion PUVA as a first-line therapy for patients with uncontrolled severe CHE. Objectives Primary objective Compare alitretinoin and Immersion PUVA as first-line therapy in terms of disease activity at 12 weeks post planned start of treatment. Secondary objectives Compare alitretinoin and Immersion PUVA in terms of disease activity over time (focusing on 24 and 52 weeks post planned start of treatment). Compare alitretinoin and Immersion PUVA in terms of time to relapse. Compare alitretinoin and Immersion PUVA in terms of quality of life (QoL) and patient benefit over 52 weeks post planned start of treatment. Determine cost-effectiveness of alitretinoin compared with Immersion PUVA over the short and longer term. Determine the educational need for patients. Compare alitretinoin and Immersion PUVA in terms of safety. Exploratory objectives included subgroup analyses to assess whether treatment response is affected by pre-specified baseline characteristics. Methods Design Prospective, multicentre, open-label, two-arm parallel group, adaptive randomised controlled trial with one planned interim analysis and an economic evaluation. Participants Patients with severe CHE unresponsive to at least 4 weeks of treatment with potent topical corticosteroids. Primary end point Natural logarithm of the Hand Eczema Severity Index (HECSI) + 1 at 12 weeks post planned start of treatment. Secondary end points Disease activity, measured by HECSI, modified Total Lesion Scoring System (mTLSS) and Physician’s Global Assessment (PGA) at 12, 24, 52 weeks post planned start of treatment. Time to relapse, defined as time between achieving clear/almost clear overall on the blinded assessor PGA and scoring 75% of their baseline HECSI, with sensitivity assessed by redefining relapse as 50% of their baseline HECSI. Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) and Patient Benefit Index for Hand Eczema (PBI-HE) at 12, 24 and 52 weeks post planned start of treatment. Person-Centred Dermatology Self-Care Index (PeDeSi) at 12 and 52 (or 24) weeks post planned start of treatment. Reported adverse events (AEs) and serious adverse events (SAEs) over 52 weeks post planned start of treatment. Cost-effectiveness of alitretinoin compared with Immersion PUVA at week 12, 52 (short term) and over 10 years (long term). Randomisation Participants were randomised using minimisation 1 : 1 to alitretinoin 30 mg/day or Immersion PUVA for 12 weeks to 24 weeks. Randomisation factors were: randomising site, disease duration, clinical phenotype, atopy status, DLQI and skin type. Analysis Linear mixed models accounting for the longitudinal data structure were fitted to primary (HECSI) and secondary end points (mTLSS, DLQI) on the intention-to-treat (ITT) population, with adjustment for: smoking history, body mass index (BMI), foot involvement, baseline score, time since planned start of treatment and treatment group. Participant and participant–time interaction were fitted as random effects. An ordinal logistic mixed model was fitted to the PGA, and an ordinal logistic model without random effects was fitted to the PeDeSI at 12 weeks. Exploratory analyses explored differential treatment effects in pre-planned subgroups, correlation of scoring systems and second-line therapies, and safety data were summarised. Total cost and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were estimated at weeks 12, 52, and 10 years after treatment initiation. The latter were combined to estimate short- and long-term cost-effectiveness. Short-term cost-effectiveness was estimated via a within-trial analysis at weeks 12 and 52 and via Markov model to estimate 10-year cost-effectiveness of both interventions. A resource use questionnaire was used to estimate short- and long-term cost of interventions and standard care, while EuroQol-5 Dimensions, three-level version (EQ-5D-3L) responses were used to estimate utility values and generate QALYs. This analysis followed the NHS and personal and social perspective (PSS). Cost-effectiveness was determined using National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines. Secondary analysis included societal perspective and QALYs determined by the DLQI. Data collection Data were collected at baseline, 4-weekly to week 36 and 8-weekly to week 52. Sample size A minimum of 500 and maximum of 780 participants were required to detect a relative difference, or fold change, of 1.3 in HECSI score between treatment arms at 12 weeks post planned start of treatment (80% power; two-sided 5% significance level) assuming a coefficient of variation (CV) between 1.175 and 1.7 and 20% attrition. Note that a fold change of 1.3 is equivalent to a fold change of 0.77 if there was a benefit in the opposite direction. A sample size review was planned after 364 participants reached 12 weeks post planned start of treatment but was conducted early in August 2017. Following Data Monitoring and Ethics Committee (DMEC) review, a sample size of 514 participants was recommended based on a CV of 1.2. Results Screening and recruitment Thirty-one NHS hospitals in England, Scotland and Wales assessed 1557 patients for eligibility, registered 582 (37.4%) and randomised 441 (75.8%) participants between October 2015 and June 2021. Of 1557 patients screened, 642 (41.2%) were ineligible, with 347 (54.0%) not having a severe CHE diagnosis. Of 915 eligible patients, 582 (63.6%) were consented and registered. Of 333 patients who did not consent, 74 (22.2%) thought the Immersion PUVA schedule or travel was inconvenient, and 28 (8.4%) did not want alitretinoin. Of 141 patients not randomised, the main reasons were not meeting the eligibility criteria [n = 69 (48.9%)] or patient choice [n = 29 (20.6%)]. Of patients randomised, 220 (49.9%) were allocated to alitretinoin and 221 (50.1%) to Immersion PUVA. Of those allocated to alitretinoin, 201 (91.4%) started treatment within 7 days post randomisation compared with 165 (74.7%) of those allocated to Immersion PUVA. In total, 132 (29.9%) participants withdrew from, or were lost to, follow-up. The ITT population included 441 (100.0%) participants. Primary outcome Hand eczema severity index at 12 weeks In terms of relative change, the median [interquartile range (IQR)] score at 12 weeks was equal to 30% (10–70%) of that at baseline for the alitretinoin group compared with 50% (20–100%) in the Immersion PUVA group. There was a statistically significant benefit of alitretinoin compared with Immersion PUVA at 12 weeks, with an estimated fold change of 0.66 (0.52, 0.82), p = 0.0003 at 12 weeks. Secondary end points Hand eczema severity index over 52 weeks There was no evidence of a difference between alitretinoin and Immersion PUVA at 24 weeks or 52 weeks, with the estimated fold change [95% confidence interval (CI)] equal to 0.92 (0.798 to 1.08) and 1.27 (0.97 to 1.67), respectively. Modified total lesion symptom score over 52 weeks There was no evidence of a difference between treatment groups over 52 weeks, with the estimated difference (95% CI) equal to −0.37 (−1.23 to 0.48) at 12 weeks, −0.14 (−0.84 to 0.56) at 24 weeks and 0.41 (−0.59 to 1.40) at 52 weeks. Physician’s Global Assessment over 52 weeks At 12 weeks, the proportion of participants with available data achieving clear or almost clear (via blinded assessment) was 27.6% (47/170) for alitretinoin and 23.6% (35/148) for Immersion PUVA. Over 52 weeks, 59.4% (123/207) of alitretinoin participants with available data achieved at least one clear/almost clear assessment compared with 61.5% (118/192) of Immersion PUVA participants. There was no evidence of a difference between treatment groups over 52 weeks, with the estimated odds ratios (alitretinoin vs. Immersion PUVA) for achieving lower PGA scores and 95% CI equal to 1.22 (0.90 to 1.64) at 12 weeks, 1.18 (0.89 to 1.56) at 24 weeks and 1.10 (0.64 to 1.89) at 52 weeks. Dermatology quality of life index over 52 weeks There was a statistically significant benefit of alitretinoin compared with Immersion PUVA, with mean scores (95% CI) estimated to be 0.95 (0.09 to 1.82) lower at 12 weeks for the alitretinoin group compared with Immersion PUVA. There was no statistically significant treatment effect at 24 weeks [estimated difference in mean scores = −0.18 (−0.92 to 0.56)], but at 52 weeks, there was a statistically significant treatment effect with increased scores in the alitretinoin group compared with the Immersion PUVA group [estimated difference in mean scores = −1.62 (−2.62 to −0.62)]. The differences observed in the DLQI were not clinically significant. Person-Centred Dermatology Self-Care Index at 12 weeks At baseline, 16.1% (n = 71) were assessed as having sufficient knowledge, ability and confidence to self-manage their condition, with a similar distribution of education needs across treatment groups. At 12 weeks, the proportion of participants with available data who had sufficient knowledge and education was 26.2% (117/324), 28.0% (49/175) in the alitretinoin group and 24.2% (36/149) in the Immersion PUVA group. There was no evidence of a difference in terms of educational need between treatment groups, with an estimated odds ratio (alitretinoin vs. Immersion PUVA) of 0.65 (0.39 to 1.08). Patient Benefit Index – hand eczema over 52 weeks At 12 weeks, the median (IQR) score was equal to 2.3 (1.4–3.2) in the alitretinoin group and 1.9 (0.9–2.8) in the Immersion PUVA group. At 24 weeks, the median (IQR) score was unchanged at 2.3 (1.2–3.5) in the alitretinoin group but had increased to 2.8 (1.4–3.5) in the Immersion PUVA group. At 52 weeks, the median (IQR) score was 2.6 (1.6–3.3) in the alitretinoin group and 3.0 (1.7–3.6) in the Immersion PUVA group. Time to relapse At treatment phase completion, 34.1% (N = 75) of participants allocated to alitretinoin achieved a clear or almost clear response, compared with 25.8% (N = 57) allocated to Immersion PUVA. When relapse was defined as 75% of the baseline HECSI score, 20% (n = 15) of alitretinoin responders relapsed compared with 15.8% (n = 9) of Immersion PUVA responders. When relapse was defined as 50% of the baseline HECSI score, 37.3% (n = 28) of alitretinoin responders and 36.8% (n = 21) of Immersion PUVA responders relapsed. Health economic analysis Within-trial estimated costs indicate that Immersion PUVA is more costly than alitretinoin at weeks 12 and 52 (week 12: £3236 vs. £1904; week 52: £4424 vs. £3336, respectively). Treatment costs are the main drivers of Immersion PUVA costs (including therapy cost, medication and follow-up). Out-of-pocket expenditures are also higher for patients assigned to Immersion PUVA. These increase the cost difference at weeks 12 and 52 (from £1333 to £1650 at week 12 and from £1081 to £1841 at week 52). Immersion PUVA’s QALYs are higher at both time points (week 12: 0.165 vs. 0.159 and week 52: 0.798 vs. 0.761). When using DLQI, the estimated QALYs were slightly higher for alitretinoin compared with Immersion PUVA (week 12: 0.158 vs. 0.154; week 52: 0.784 vs. 0.782, respectively). When combined, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) indicate alitretinoin is cost-effective at weeks 12 and 52 in all scenarios (primary analysis, societal perspective, and QALYs derived from DLQI). These results are robust, as the probability of cost-effectiveness is between 96% and 100%. Long-term cost-effectiveness The 10-year cost estimates indicate that patients allocated to alitretinoin are slightly more costly than Immersion PUVA (£5432 vs. £5361, respectively). In terms of QALYs, Immersion PUVA is slightly more effective (6.535 vs. 6.530, respectively). The latter suggests Immersion PUVA is the cost-effective strategy; however, results are uncertain, as only 50% of the probabilistic analysis iterations indicate this is the case. Safety data Seventy-nine participants had 135 reportable AEs, 25.0% (n = 55) participants allocated to alitretinoin and 10.9% (n = 24) participants allocated to Immersion PUVA. There were four serious AEs (SAEs; two alitretinoin, two Immersion PUVA); one suspected/expected to be related to treatment, and three related to underlying CHE. There were four pregnancies (three alitretinoin, one Immersion PUVA), including one alitretinoin patient in active treatment, who stopped treatment immediately. Treatment compliance In total, 212 (96.4%) participants randomised to alitretinoin and 196 (88.7%) randomised to Immersion PUVA received treatment. Full ‘trial’ compliance (≥ 80% received and no treatment breaks > 7 days during the first 12 weeks) was observed in 65.9% (N = 145) participants allocated to alitretinoin and 24.0% (N = 53) allocated to Immersion PUVA. Subgroup analysis No differential treatment effects were observed within subgroups defined by disease duration, clinical phenotype, disease severity, presence of atopy, filaggrin loss of function mutation, smoking history, BMI, foot involvement or biomarkers identified through tape stripping. Conclusion Alitretinoin and Immersion PUVA both led to reductions in symptoms. As a first-line therapy, alitretinoin showed a more rapid improvement and was superior to Immersion PUVA in terms of primary end point at 12 weeks. This difference was not observed at later time points. Alitretinoin was more cost-effective over the short term (12 and 52 weeks) with robust results. Long-term analysis indicates that Immersion PUVA is cost-effective in the long term; these results, however, are uncertain. These findings will inform clinical management of patients with severe CHE. Alitretinoin may be considered as the recommended first-line therapy; however, Immersion PUVA may also be considered for longer-term outcomes, particularly in patients where alitretinoin is not an appropriate treatment. Recruitment was difficult, with perceived treatment pathway challenges. The trial implemented a self-referral service, through which 13.8% of randomised participants were recruited. The Immersion PUVA schedule was problematic, with more than 20% of participants declining participation citing this as their main reason. Immersion PUVA treatment compliance was poor, and regular twice-weekly treatment was not achieved by most patients. Hand eczema severity index (HECSI) was the chosen primary outcome measure because it incorporated more details about the condition compared with PGA, which had been used previously. Furthermore, HECSI is continuous rather than discrete, which meant a smaller sample size was required for a desired level of power. The results from ALPHA will help inform future CHE trial designs. Most participants had some educational need for how to manage their condition, and overall, there remains a need for better therapeutic approaches for severe CHE. Just 59% and 61% of patients allocated to alitretinoin and Immersion PUVA, respectively, were known to achieve a clear/almost clear assessment at any time point during the trial period. Further work includes deeper analysis of substudies and pilot data to inform future research, which is needed to understand the long-term effects of treatments. Trial registration This trial is registered as ISRCTN80206075. Funding This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 12/186/01) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 59. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Background Speech impairments are common with Parkinson’s disease (reported prevalence 68%), increasing conversational demands, reliance on family and social withdrawal. Objective(s) The PD COMM trial compared the clinical and cost-effectiveness of two speech and language therapy approaches: Lee Silverman Voice Treatment LOUD and National Health Service speech and language therapy for the treatment of speech or voice problems in people with Parkinson’s disease to no speech and language therapy (control) and against each other. Design PD COMM is a phase III, multicentre, three-arm, unblinded, randomised controlled trial. Participants were randomised in a 1 : 1 : 1 ratio to control, National Health Service speech and language therapy or Lee Silverman Voice Treatment LOUD via a central computer-generated programme, using a minimisation procedure with a random element, to ensure allocation concealment. Mixed-methods process and health economic evaluations were conducted. Setting United Kingdom outpatient and home settings. Participants People with idiopathic Parkinson’s disease, with self-reported or carer-reported speech or voice problems. We excluded people with dementia, laryngeal pathology and those within 24 months of previous speech and language therapy. Interventions The Lee Silverman Voice Treatment LOUD intervention included maximum effort drills and high-effort speech production tasks delivered over four 50-minute therapist-led personalised sessions per week, for 4 weeks with prescribed daily home practice. National Health Service speech and language therapy content and dosage reflected local non-Lee Silverman Voice Treatment speech and language therapy practices, usually 1 hour, once weekly, for 6 weeks. Trained, experienced speech and language therapists or assistants provided interventions. The control was no speech and language therapy until the trial was completed. Main outcome measures Primary outcome: Voice Handicap Index total score at 3 months. Secondary outcomes: Voice Handicap Index subscales, Parkinson’s Disease Questionnaire-39; Questionnaire on Acquired Speech Disorders; EuroQol-5D-5L; ICEpop Capabilities Measure for Older Adults; Parkinson’s Disease Questionnaire – Carers; resource utilisation; and adverse events. Assessments were completed pre-randomisation and at 3, 6 and 12 months post randomisation. Results Three hundred and eighty-eight participants were randomised to Lee Silverman Voice Treatment LOUD (n = 130), National Health Service speech and language therapy (n = 129) and control (n = 129). The impact of voice problems at 3 months after randomisation was lower for Lee Silverman Voice Treatment LOUD participants than control [−8.0 (99% confidence interval: −13.3, −2.6); p = 0.001]. There was no evidence of improvement for those with access to National Health Service speech and language therapy when compared to control [1.7 (99% confidence interval: −3.8, 7.1); p = 0.4]. Participants randomised to Lee Silverman Voice Treatment LOUD reported a lower impact of their voice problems than participants randomised to National Health Service speech and language therapy [99% confidence interval: −9.6 (−14.9, −4.4); p 70 years); disease severity measured using the Hoehn and Yahr staging (1.0–2.5, 3.0–5.0) and severity of speech measured using the Voice Handicap Index (VHI) total score (≤ 33, mild 34–44, moderate 45–61, severe > 61). To avoid any possibility of the treatment allocation becoming predictable, a random element was included within the randomisation process. Once the participant was randomised into the trial, they were given a unique trial identifier and the treatment allocation was confirmed by e-mail to the site. The primary outcome measure for the trial was patient-reported VHI total score at 3 months. The VHI measures the psychosocial consequences of voice disorders and provides an overall perception of effectiveness of voice-related communication. The VHI comprises of 30 questions (0–120 negatively scored) divided into emotional, functional and physical subscales (0–40 subscale score). Secondary outcomes were: the VHI subscales; the Parkinson’s Disease Questionnaire-39, a validated, health-related quality-of-life measure specific to PD; the Questionnaire on Acquired Speech Disorders, self-reported participation restriction related to speech and communication; the participant-rated EuroQol5D (5-level version) which provides a simple descriptive profile and a single index value for health status; the ICEpop Capabilities Measure for Older Adults (ICECAP-O), a measure of capability in older people for use in economic evaluations; a disease-specific participant resource usage questionnaire; carer quality of life, measured using the PD Questionnaire – carer; and adverse events. For participants in either SLT arm, any vocal strain or abuse believed to be associated with treatment was identified by the therapists at the participants’ SLT session and was reported in the adverse event log. All participant-reported resource usage forms completed for the trial were checked to ensure that no vocal strain or abuse had occurred in outpatient appointments with ENT specialists. At the 12-month clinical visit, the medical professional also checked whether any adverse events had occurred since entering the trial. There were two nested studies within this trial: a process evaluation and an economic evaluation. A process evaluation of the content of the interventions examined participants’ and therapists’ reported content of a subset of the two SLT interventions. Individual participant therapy data recorded by participants and therapists during the PD COMM trial were extracted from treatment record forms and therapy notes. Extraction category headings were piloted and reflected the Template for Intervention Description and Replication intervention reporting guidelines, with ongoing refinement as extraction progressed and components of the interventions were identified which were inadequately accounted for in the initial framework. The process evaluation of the implementation of the interventions used normalisation process theory which is highly attuned to the challenges of complex interventions as it encourages looking at systems as a whole. We considered that its conceptual framework would assist the interpretation and synthesis of data and analysis to explain what implementation processes took place and the interactions and gaps between the PD COMM interventions, the changing context, speech and language therapists and their practice. A within-trial economic evaluation in the form of cost–utility analysis was conducted from the perspective of the NHS. The primary results were expressed in terms of cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained at 12 months for the three trial comparisons. Additional secondary analyses were performed from the NHS, personal social services perspective, broader societal perspective and using the capability approach, which uses broader measures of capability well-being. Results The mean age of participants in PD COMM was approximately 70 years old, and 74% were male (286/388). The mean duration of PD was between 5 and 6 years, with a broad range from newly diagnosed to over 30 years, and the majority (61%) were in Hoehn and Yahr stage of 2 or less (

Background Irritable bowel syndrome, characterised by abdominal pain and a change in stool form or frequency, is most often managed in primary care. When first-line therapies are ineffective, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines suggest considering low-dose tricyclic antidepressants as second-line treatment, but their effectiveness in primary care is unknown and they are infrequently prescribed by general practitioners. Objective To evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of low-dose titrated amitriptyline as a second-line treatment for irritable bowel syndrome in primary care. Design A pragmatic, randomised, multicentre, two-arm, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. A nested, qualitative study explored participant and general practitioner experiences of treatments and trial participation, and implications for wider use of amitriptyline for irritable bowel syndrome in primary care. Participants, clinicians, investigators and analysts were masked to allocation. Setting Fifty-five general practices in three regions in England (Wessex, West of England, West Yorkshire). Participants Patients aged ≥ 18 years meeting Rome IV criteria for irritable bowel syndrome with ongoing symptoms after trying first-line treatments and no contraindications to TCAs. Intervention Amitriptyline 10 mg once-daily, self-titrated by participants to a maximum of 30 mg once-daily or matched placebo for 6 months. Participants randomised 1 : 1 with most having the option to continue blinded treatment for a further 6 months. Main outcome measures The primary participant-reported outcome was the effect of amitriptyline on global irritable bowel syndrome symptoms at 6 months, measured using the irritable bowel syndrome Severity Scoring System, with a 35-point between-group difference defined as the minimum clinically important difference. The key secondary outcome was the proportion of participants reporting subjective global assessment of relief at 6 months, defined as somewhat, considerable, or complete relief of symptoms. Other secondary outcomes included: effect on global symptoms, via the irritable bowel syndrome Severity Scoring System, and subjective global assessment of relief of irritable bowel syndrome symptoms at 3 and 12 months; effect on somatic symptom-reporting at 6 months; anxiety an–d depression scores; ability to work and participate in other activities at 3, 6 and 12 months; acceptability, tolerability and adherence to trial medication. Results Four hundred and sixty-three participants were randomised to amitriptyline (232) or placebo (231). An intention-to-treat analysis of the primary outcome showed a significant difference in favour of amitriptyline for irritable bowel syndrome Severity Scoring System score between arms at 6 months [−27.0, 95% confidence interval (CI) −46.9 to −7.10; p = 0.008]. For the key secondary outcome of subjective global assessment of relief of irritable bowel syndrome symptoms, amitriptyline was superior to placebo at 6 months (odds ratio 1.78, 95% CI 1.19 to 2.66; p = 0.005). Amitriptyline was superior to placebo across a range of other irritable bowel syndrome symptom measures but had no impact on somatoform symptom-reporting, anxiety, depression, or work and social adjustment scores. Adverse event trial withdrawals were more common with amitriptyline (12.9% vs. 8.7% for placebo) but most adverse events were mild. The qualitative study thematically analysed 77 semistructured interviews with 42 participants and 16 GPs. Most participants found the self-titration process acceptable and empowering. Conclusions General practitioners should offer low-dose amitriptyline to patients with irritable bowel syndrome whose symptoms do not improve with first-line therapies. Guidance and resources should support GP–patient communication to distinguish amitriptyline for irritable bowel syndrome from use as an antidepressant and to support patients managing their own dose titration. Study registration This trial is registered as ISRCTN48075063. Funding This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 16/162/01) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment Vol. 28, No. 66. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information. Plain language summary Background People with irritable bowel syndrome experience stomach (abdominal) pain and changes to their bowel movements. Irritable bowel syndrome can have a serious impact on people’s lives. Previous small trials suggest that a drug called amitriptyline used at a low dose may help irritable bowel syndrome. Amitriptyline is already used to treat other conditions. It is available for irritable bowel syndrome but is not used much by general practitioners. Methods We recruited adults aged ≥ 18 years with irritable bowel syndrome from UK general practices who did not have any issues preventing the use of amitriptyline. Patients received either low-dose amitriptyline or placebo (a dummy tablet) for 6 months. Patients could adjust the dose according to symptoms and side effects. Neither the researchers nor the patients knew which treatment they were getting. Participants recorded symptoms using a questionnaire containing an irritable bowel syndrome severity score. We looked at the difference in average irritable bowel syndrome severity score between patients receiving amitriptyline and placebo. We also looked at effects of amitriptyline on mood, ability to work, and non-gut symptoms related to irritable bowel syndrome, as well as safety and acceptability. Some patients and general practitioners were interviewed about their experiences. Results Four hundred and sixty-three patients took part. Participants receiving amitriptyline reported a bigger improvement in their irritable bowel syndrome severity scores at 6 months, compared with patients on placebo. Amitriptyline was better across a range of irritable bowel syndrome symptom measures but did not impact anxiety, depression or ability to work. Forty-six people (19.8%) stopped taking amitriptyline and 59 (25.5%) stopped the placebo before 6 months. Patients liked being able to adjust their dose and valued contact with the research team. Conclusion This study showed that amitriptyline is more effective than a placebo and is safe. General practitioners should offer low-dose amitriptyline to people with irritable bowel syndrome if symptoms do not improve with other standard treatments. Patients should be supported and helped to adjust their dose as needed. The dose adjustment sheet used in this trial will be made available. Scientific summary Background Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) affects 5% of the population, accounting for > 3% of all consultations in primary care in England and Wales. Symptoms include abdominal pain in association with a change in stool form or frequency. The condition impacts on quality of life and ability to work and limits social activities. The medical management of IBS is unsatisfactory, with no therapy proven to alter the long-term natural history and, at best, modest symptom reduction. Previous meta-analyses of trials conducted in secondary and tertiary care suggest low-dose tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) may be efficacious, probably because of their pain-modifying properties, as well as their influence on gut motility, rather than any effects on mood. Although National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines for the management of IBS in primary care suggest considering low-dose TCAs as second-line treatment, their effectiveness in this setting is unknown and they are infrequently prescribed by general practitioners (GPs). Objectives Our objective was to determine the clinical and cost-effectiveness of low-dose titrated amitriptyline compared with placebo for 6 months as a second-line treatment in adults with IBS in primary care. Methods ATLANTIS was a pragmatic, randomised, multicentre, parallel-group, two-arm, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. A nested, qualitative study explored participant and GP experiences of treatments and trial participation. A within-study cost-effectiveness analysis was planned but, due to the coronavirus disease discovered in 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, health economic analyses were removed after obtaining additional funding to complete the trial to prioritise funds for participant recruitment. These will be subject to further funding. Participants, their GPs, investigators, the research team, and the analysis team were all masked to treatment allocation throughout the trial. Patients meeting Rome IV criteria for IBS who had tried first-line treatments and with ongoing IBS symptoms [score of ≥ 75 on the IBS Severity Scoring System (IBS-SSS)] were recruited via mail-out from 55 general practices in three regions in England. Participants were randomised 1 : 1 to receive either low-dose titrated amitriptyline or placebo. Both treatments were supplied for 6 months, with the dose commenced at 10 mg o.d. and titrated to a maximum of 30 mg o.d. or a minimum of 10 mg alternate days. Dose titration was participant-led according to IBS symptoms and side effects, with support from the trial team and a dose titration document developed with input via patient and public involvement. Participants recruited earlier to the trial had the option to continue blinded treatment for an additional 6 months. The primary outcome was the effect of amitriptyline on global IBS symptom scores at 6 months. The key secondary outcome was the proportion of participants with relief of IBS symptoms at 6 months. Other secondary outcomes included effect on global IBS symptoms and relief of IBS symptoms at 3 and 12 months, effect on IBS-associated somatic symptoms at 6 months, effect on quality of life, anxiety, and depression scores, and ability to work and participate in other activities at 3, 6 and 12 months, as well as acceptability and tolerability of, and adherence to, treatment. Patient-reported questionnaires at baseline and 3, 6 and 12 months post randomisation (unless otherwise indicated) were used to assess IBS symptom severity (measured via the IBS-SSS), relief of IBS symptoms [measured by subjective global assessment (SGA) of relief], adequate relief of IBS symptoms (measured by a weekly response to the question ‘Have you had adequate relief of your IBS symptoms?’), IBS-associated somatic symptoms [using the Patient Health Questionnaire-12 (PHQ-12)], mood [using the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS)], ability to work and participate in other activities [using the Work and Social Adjustment Scale (WSAS)], quality of life (using the EQ-5D-3L), healthcare use (using a bespoke health resource use questionnaire), and tolerability [using the Antidepressant Side-Effect Checklist (ASEC)]. Numbers of participants reporting serious adverse events (SAEs), including serious adverse reactions (SARs), were reported for each treatment group. An evaluable sample size of 414 participants would provide 90% power to detect a minimum clinically important difference of 35 points between amitriptyline and placebo at 6 months on the IBS-SSS. This sample size provided at least 85% power to detect a 15% absolute difference in the key secondary outcome of SGA of relief of IBS symptoms at 6 months. We planned to recruit 518 participants, allowing for 20% loss to follow-up. Effectiveness outcomes were analysed in the intention-to-treat population, defined as all participants randomised, regardless of adherence. All statistical testing used two-sided 5% significance levels. The primary outcome was analysed using a linear regression model, adjusted for minimisation variables and baseline IBS-SSS score. Missing data were imputed by treatment arm, via multiple imputation, and results were expressed as point estimates with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Secondary binary outcomes were analysed in logistic or ordinal regression models, with results expressed as odds ratios (ORs) with 95% CIs. Continuous secondary outcomes, including PHQ-12, HADS and WSAS scores, were analysed as for the primary outcome, adjusted for the respective baseline score. All participants receiving at least one dose of trial medication, according to medication received, were included in the safety analysis. The nested, qualitative study aimed to identify factors that would facilitate or impede prescribing of, acceptability of, and adherence to, low-dose amitriptyline in IBS, to identify participants’ and GPs’ perspectives on the broader impact of the trial, and to explore psychosocial and contextual factors that might shape wider use of amitriptyline for IBS. Familiarity with amitriptyline may both hinder uptake, given its association with depression, and facilitate it, given that it is a known drug, taken in a low dose distinct from the antidepressant dose, already used for a range of other painful conditions and has comparatively mild, and in some cases potentially beneficial, side effects such as on sleep. Semi-structured audio-recorded telephone interviews were conducted with a diverse sub-sample of trial participants and GPs involved in the trial and transcribed verbatim. The final sample size was dependent on saturation, to achieve a rigorous, credible analysis in relation to the aims. Topic guides allowed flexible exploration of all required topics, while remaining open to participants’ individual experiences and perspectives. To enhance trustworthiness of the analysis, all qualitative study team members contributed to avoid producing idiosyncratic interpretations, a negative case analysis was undertaken, and an audit trail was produced to enhance transparency, including detailed coding manuals and interviewer field notes. Reflexive thematic analysis, incorporating techniques from grounded theory, was used to analyse the qualitative data. Data collection and initial analyses proceeded iteratively, and informed subsequent interviews. Analysis was primarily inductive, with researchers identifying themes in the data rather than imposing any pre-existing interpretive framework. Qualitative findings were related to the main trial findings by comparing themes across subgroups and against the quantitative data. Clinical results In total, 15,672 potentially eligible patients were invited to take part, of whom 1253 were interested and were screened. Of those screened, 463 (37.0%) were randomised {mean age 48.5 years [standard deviation (SD) 16.1 years], 315 (68.0%) female}, to amitriptyline (n = 232) or placebo (n = 231). Six-month follow-up was achieved for 401 (86.6%) participants, 204 (87.9%) in the amitriptyline arm, and 197 (85.3%) in the placebo arm. Participants were well balanced between treatment arms according to demographics and baseline characteristics, IBS symptom severity, PHQ-12 scores, HADS-depression and HADS-anxiety scores, and previous first-line treatments. Among participants, 80.4% had IBS-D or IBS-M, 84.2% had a normal HADS-depression score, and 84.7% had moderate to severe scores on the IBS-SSS, with a mean IBS-SSS score in all participants of 272.8 (SD 90.3). The median duration of IBS was 10 years. In total, 338 (73.0%) participants completed 6 months of treatment, 173 (74.6%) randomised to amitriptyline and 165 (71.4%) to placebo. Discontinuation of trial medication before 6 months occurred in 105 (22.7%) participants, 46 (19.8%) allocated to amitriptyline and 59 (25.5%) to placebo. The most common reason for discontinuing trial medication was adverse events (AEs) in 30 (12.9%) participants allocated to amitriptyline and 20 (8.7%) to placebo, followed by lack of benefit in 7 (3.0%) randomised to amitriptyline and 18 (7.8%) to placebo. There were a further 17 (3.7%) participants lost to follow-up and 3 (0.6%) who did not commence trial medication. By 3 months, similar proportions of participants randomised to amitriptyline had titrated their dose to 20 mg o.d. (35.2%) or 30 mg o.d. (37.8%), although by 6 months this had increased to 42.8% taking 30 mg o.d. However, in the placebo arm, 57.0% of participants titrated their dose to 30 mg o.d. within 3 months and this proportion was similar at 6 months. For the primary outcome, amitriptyline was superior to placebo at 6 months in the intention-to-treat analysis, with a significant difference in mean IBS-SSS score between arms (−27.0, 95% CI −46.9 to −7.1; p = 0.008). For the key secondary outcome, SGA of relief of IBS symptoms, amitriptyline was also superior to placebo (OR for relief of IBS symptoms = 1.78, 95% CI 1.19 to 2.66; p = 0.005). At 3 months, the difference in mean change in IBS-SSS score also favoured amitriptyline (−23.3, 95% CI −42.0 to −4.6; p = 0.014), as did the SGA of relief of IBS symptoms (OR = 1.70, 95% CI 1.15 to 2.53; p = 0.008). In a sensitivity analysis using an alternative definition of SGA of relief of IBS symptoms, where only those reporting considerable or complete relief of IBS symptoms at 3 or 6 months were classed as responders, the effect size in the amitriptyline arm increased at both 3 (OR = 1.81, 95% CI 1.17 to 2.79) and 6 months (OR = 1.88, 95% CI 1.20 to 2.95). Other sensitivity analyses on the per-protocol population for the primary outcome and on participants with complete data for the primary and key secondary outcomes gave consistent results, albeit with larger estimated treatment effects. In terms of adequate relief of IBS symptoms, amitriptyline was also superior to placebo with increased odds of adequate relief across all 25 weeks (OR = 1.56, 95% CI 1.20 to 2.03; p < 0.001), and a higher proportion of participants reporting adequate relief for ≥ 13 of 25 weeks [90/222 (40.5%) vs. 67/221 (30.3%)]. Significantly higher numbers of participants taking amitriptyline reported the drug to be acceptable and would have been willing to continue taking it at 6 months (OR = 1.60, 95% CI 1.08 to 2.35; p = 0.018). Adherence at 3 months was identical in the two treatment arms, but it was higher in the amitriptyline arm at 6 months [172/232 (74.1%) vs. 155/228 (68.0%)]. Amitriptyline had no significant effect on PHQ-12 scores at 6 months, or HADS-anxiety, HADS-depression or WSAS scores at either 3 or 6 months. In terms of treatment-emergent AEs, there was a statistically significant increase in the total ASEC score in those receiving amitriptyline compared with placebo at 3 months (1.39, 95% CI 0.29 to 2.50; p = 0.013) but not at 6 months (0.26, 95% CI −0.98 to 1.51; p = 0.681). The AEs reported in participants receiving amitriptyline in excess of those reported by the placebo arm mainly related to its known anticholinergic effects, including dry mouth, drowsiness, blurred vision and problems with urination. However, rates of treatment-emergent AEs fell between 3 and 6 months and few were severe. The commonest AEs leading to discontinuation in the amitriptyline arm were drowsiness and deterioration of mood. In total, there were five SARs, two in the amitriptyline arm and three in the placebo arm. There were five SAEs unrelated to trial medication, of which four occurred in the amitriptyline arm and one in the placebo arm. In the subset of participants recruited to 12 months’ follow-up and with the choice to continue treatment beyond 6 months, 44% of participants completed 12 months’ treatment. Despite the mixed sample, in the 12-month ITT population, weak evidence of a significant effect in favour of low-dose amitriptyline remained on the mean IBS-SSS (−22.6, 95% CI −49.35 to −4.16; p = 0.098) and the SGA of relief of global IBS symptoms (OR = 1.58, 95% CI 0.94 to 2.64; p = 0.083). In contrast to 6-month results, there was a statistically significant effect on the HADS-depression (−0.88, 95% CI −1.71 to 0.06; p = 0.036) and WSAS (−2.14, 95% CI −3.80 to −0.49; p = 0.011) scores in favour of low-dose amitriptyline. Qualitative results The qualitative study conducted and thematically analysed 77 semistructured interviews with 42 participants and 16 GPs. A multidisciplinary team including patient collaborators explored multiple aspects of participants’ and GPs’ experiences of treatments and participating in the ATLANTIS trial. The qualitative analysis of barriers and facilitators suggests that low-dose amitriptyline for IBS is acceptable to, and is often welcomed by, GPs and patients as an additional treatment option. Addressing concerns and promoting facilitators could facilitate wider use of low-dose amitriptyline for IBS which may be achieved through: Clear communication to clinicians, for example in clinical guidelines, that distinguishes low-dose amitriptyline for IBS from amitriptyline use for other conditions (especially depression). Resources to support GP–patient communication to distinguish low-dose amitriptyline for IBS from amitriptyline for other conditions (especially depression). This might include, for example, tips for GPs when discussing amitriptyline for IBS with patients, online materials to support or reinforce messages given during consultations, tailored packaging and patient inserts, and education for pharmacists. Clear guidance about low-dose amitriptyline for IBS and anticholinergic burden. This should highlight that low-dose amitriptyline has lower potential risk and that currently anticholinergic burden risk scores do not account for dose, so can overinterpret risk with low-dose amitriptyline. Guidance and resources for GPs and patients to support patients managing their own dose titration. The dose-titration document used in ATLANTIS was well received by GPs and patients. Conclusions In the largest trial of a TCA in IBS ever conducted, titrated low-dose amitriptyline was superior to placebo as a second-line treatment for IBS in primary care across multiple outcomes and was safe. The results of ATLANTIS strongly support use of titrated low-dose amitriptyline in this setting. GPs should offer low-dose amitriptyline to patients with IBS whose symptoms do not improve with first-line therapies, with appropriate support to guide patient-led dose titration, such as the self-titration document developed for this trial. Trial registration This trial is registered as ISRCTN48075063. Funding This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 16/162/01) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 66. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Background Chronic limb-threatening ischaemia with ischaemic pain and/or tissue loss. Objective To examine the clinical and cost-effectiveness of a vein bypass-first compared to a best endovascular treatment-first revascularisation strategy in preventing major amputation or death. Design Superiority, open, pragmatic, multicentre, phase III randomised trial. Setting Thirty-nine vascular surgery units in the United Kingdom, and one each in Sweden and Denmark. Participants Patients with chronic limb-threatening ischaemia due to atherosclerotic peripheral arterial disease who required an infra-popliteal revascularisation, with or without an additional more proximal infra-inguinal revascularisation procedure, to restore limb perfusion. Interventions A vein bypass-first or a best endovascular treatment-first infra-popliteal, with or without an additional more proximal infra-inguinal revascularisation strategy. Main outcome measures The primary outcome was amputation-free survival. Secondary outcomes included overall survival, major amputation, further revascularisation interventions, major adverse limb event, health-related quality of life and serious adverse events. Methods Participants were randomised to a vein bypass-first or a best endovascular treatment-first revascularisation strategy. The original sample size of 600 participants (247 events) was based on a hazard ratio of 0.66 with amputation-free survival rates of 0.72, 0.62, 0.53, 0.47 and 0.35 in years 1–5 in the best endovascular treatment-first group with 90% power and alpha at p = 0.05. The sample size was revised to an event-based approach as a result of increased follow-up time due to slower than anticipated recruitment rates. Participants were followed up for a minimum of 2 years. A cost-effectiveness analysis was employed to estimate differences in total hospital costs and amputation-free survival between the groups. Additionally, a cost–utility analysis was carried out and the total cost and quality-adjusted life-years, 2 and 3 years after randomisation were used. Results Between 22 July 2014 and 30 November 2020, 345 participants were randomised, 172 to vein bypass-first and 173 to best endovascular treatment-first. Non-amputation-free survival occurred in 108 (63%) of 172 patients in the vein bypass-first group and 92 (53%) of 173 patients in the best endovascular treatment-first group [adjusted hazard ratio 1.35 (95% confidence interval 1.02 to 1.80); p = 0.037]. Ninety-one (53%) of 172 patients in the vein bypass-first group and 77 (45%) of 173 patients in the best endovascular treatment-first group died [adjusted hazard ratio 1.37 (95% confidence interval 1.00 to 1.87)]. Over follow-up, the economic evaluation discounted results showed that best endovascular treatment-first was associated with £1690 less hospital costs compared to vein bypass-first. The cost utility analysis showed that compared to vein bypass-first, best endovascular treatment-first was associated with £224 and £2233 less discounted hospital costs and 0.016 and 0.085 discounted quality-adjusted life-year gain after 2 and 3 years from randomisation. Limitations Recruiting patients to the Bypass versus Angioplasty in Severe Ischaemia of the Leg Trial-2 trial was difficult and the target number of events was not achieved. Conclusions A best endovascular treatment-first revascularisation strategy was associated with better amputation-free survival, which was largely driven by fewer deaths. Overall, the economic evaluation results suggest that best endovascular treatment-first dominates vein bypass-first in the cost-effectiveness analysis and cost–utility analysis as it was less costly and more effective than a vein bypass-first strategy. Future work The Bypass versus Angioplasty in Severe Ischaemia of the Leg Trial-2 investigators have a data sharing agreement with the BEst Surgical Therapy in patients with Chronic Limb threatening Ischaemia investigators. One output of this collaboration will be an individual patient data meta-analysis. Study registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN27728689. Funding This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 12/35/45) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 65. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information. Plain language summary Atherosclerosis, or narrowing of the arteries, can occur as a result of smoking, high blood pressure, diabetes, or high cholesterol in the blood. Atherosclerosis can affect any artery, including those supplying the legs, where the condition is called peripheral arterial disease. The most severe form of peripheral arterial disease is chronic limb-threatening ischaemia which can cause severe pain in the foot as well as ulcers and gangrene. Unless the blood supply to the leg and foot is improved, by a process called revascularisation, people with chronic limb-threatening ischaemia are at high risk of amputation and death. The blood supply can be improved by using a vein from the leg to bypass around the blockages (vein bypass) or by using a balloon (angioplasty) or small metal tubes (stents) to reopen the blocked arteries (best endovascular treatment). There is debate about which type of revascularisation is best in terms of preventing amputation and death, especially in people who need revascularisation of the arteries below the knee. Bypass versus Angioplasty in Severe Ischaemia of the Leg Trial-2 is the first randomised controlled trial to compare vein bypass-first and best endovascular treatment-first in this group of patients. Bypass versus Angioplasty in Severe Ischaemia of the Leg Trial-2 found that people randomised to a vein bypass-first revascularisation strategy were 35% more likely to require a major amputation or die than those randomised to a best endovascular treatment-first strategy. Most of this difference in favour of best endovascular treatment-first was due to a higher number of patients dying in the vein bypass-first group. Best endovascular treatment-first was also cheaper for the National Health Service. The results of this study suggest that in patients with chronic limb-threatening ischaemia due to peripheral arterial disease in the arteries below the knee, who are suitable for both vein bypass and best endovascular treatment and where there is uncertainty as to which is best, best endovascular treatment should be offered first rather than vein bypass. Scientific summary Background Chronic limb-threatening ischaemia (CLTI) is the severest manifestation of peripheral arterial disease (PAD) and presents with ischaemic pain at rest or tissue loss (ulceration, gangrene or both) or both. The researchers compared the effectiveness of a vein bypass (VB)-first with a best endovascular treatment (BET)-first revascularisation strategy in terms of preventing major amputation and death in patients with CLTI who required an infra-popliteal (IP) revascularisation, with or without an additional more proximal infra-inguinal revascularisation procedure, to restore limb perfusion. Objectives The primary objective of the study was to examine the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of using a VB-first compared to a BET-first revascularisation strategy in terms of preventing major (above the ankle) amputation or death from any cause [amputation-free survival (AFS)] in patients with CLTI who required an IP, with or without an additional more proximal infra-inguinal revascularisation procedure, to restore limb perfusion. Design Superiority, open-label, pragmatic, multicentre, phase III randomised trial. Setting Thirty-nine vascular surgery units in the United Kingdom, and one each in Sweden and Denmark. Participants Those with CLTI due to atherosclerotic PAD and who required an IP revascularisation, with or without an additional more proximal infra-inguinal revascularisation procedure, to restore limb perfusion. Interventions A VB-first or a BET-first IP, with or without an additional more proximal infra-inguinal revascularisation strategy, to restore limb perfusion. Most VBs were constructed with great saphenous vein and originated from the common or superficial femoral arteries. Most endovascular interventions comprised plain balloon angioplasty with selective use of plain or drug-eluting stents. Outcome measures The primary outcome was AFS defined as time to first major (above the ankle) amputation or death from any cause. Secondary outcomes included: time to death from any cause (overall survival); time to major amputation of the trial leg; major adverse limb event (defined as major amputation of the trial leg, or any further major revascularisation intervention to the trial leg, following the first revascularisation intervention); major adverse cardiac event (defined as chronic limb-threatening ischaemia and/or major amputation affecting the non-trial leg, myocardial infarction, transient ischaemic attack or stroke); 30-day morbidity and mortality; relief of ischaemic pain as determined by visual analogue scale and opiate usage; health- related quality of life using generic [EuroQol-5 Dimensions, five-level version (EQ-5D-5L), Short Form questionnaire-12 items, ICEpop CAPability measure for Older people] and disease-specific (the Vascular Quality of Life Questionnaire) tools; further major revascularisation intervention to the trial leg (following the first revascularisation intervention); re-intervention and crossover intervention (where re-intervention is defined as the same, and a crossover procedure is defined as an alternative, revascularisation procedure to the first revascularisation procedure post-randomisation); healing of tissue loss (ulcers, gangrene) at or below the ankle presumed to be caused by PAD as assessed by the perfusion, extent, depth, infection and sensation score, the Wound Ischaemia and foot Infection tool; and haemodynamic measurements (ankle–brachial pressure index, and toe brachial pressure index). Serious adverse events were collected up to 30 days post first revascularisation. Economic evaluation analyses in the form of cost-effectiveness and cost–utility analysis (CUA) were conducted from the perspective of the UK NHS alongside the trial. The base case analyses considered only hospital costs and an additional scenario and subgroup analyses were carried out. Sample size The original sample size was based on a time-to-event analysis to be undertaken 2 years after completion of recruitment. It was anticipated that recruitment would take place over 3 years: 20% of patients recruited in year 1, 40% in year 2 and 40% in year 3. Based on the Bypass versus Angioplasty in Severe Ischaemia of the Leg Trial (BASIL-1) trial. AFS rates were assumed to be 0.72 in year 1, 0.62 in year 2, 0.53 in year 3, 0.47 in year 4 and 0.35 in year 5. Allowing for a 10% attrition rate and based on the survival estimates calculated using the BASIL-1 data, a population of 600 participants (247 primary outcome events) would have 90% power to detect a reduction in AFS of one-third [hazard ratio (HR) 0.66] at the 5% significance level. The initial assumptions made in this trial concerning recruitment rates were not achieved; therefore, recruitment continued beyond year 3. As a result, the median length of follow-up was longer than originally planned. Therefore, the number of randomised participants required to observe 247 events (as per the original sample size target) was reduced due to the increased exposure time. With support of the funder and independent oversight from the Data Monitoring Committee, recruitment rates, length of follow-up, and pooled event rates over time were modelled to predict the number of participants needed to reach 247 events, with 24 months minimum follow-up in each participant. The modelling was updated approximately every 6 months based on emerging data. Results Between 22 July 2014 and 30 November 2020, 345 participants were randomised, 172 to the VB-first group and 173 to the BET-first group. The baseline characteristics of the two groups were similar. Major amputation or death occurred in 108 (63%) of 172 patients in the VB-first group and 92 (53%) of 173 patients in the BET-first group {adjusted HR 1.35 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.02 to 1.80]; p = 0.037}. Ninety-one (53%) of 172 patients in the VB-first group and 77 (45%) of 173 patients in the BET-first group died [adjusted HR 1.37 (95% CI 1.00 to 1.87)]. In both groups the commonest causes of morbidity and mortality, including those occurring within 30 days of their first revascularisation, were cardiovascular and respiratory events. Over follow-up, the economic evaluation results showed that BET-first was associated with £1690 less hospital costs compared to VB-first with additional survival without amputation. The cost utility analysis showed that compared to VB-first, BET-first was associated with £2524 and £2233 less hospital costs and 0.016 and 0.085 QALY gain after 2 and 3 years from randomisation. Conclusions In the BASIL-2 trial, a BET-first revascularisation strategy was associated with a better AFS, which was largely driven by fewer deaths in the BET-first group. In both the CUA and cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) analyses and from a NHS and societal perspective BET-first dominated VB-first and is therefore a highly cost-effective intervention for the NHS. These data suggest a greater role for BET in the management of patients with CLTI who require an IP revascularisation to restore limb perfusion. In patients with CLTI who required an IP, with or without an additional more proximal infra-inguinal revascularisation procedure, to restore limb perfusion, a BET-first revascularisation strategy was associated with reduced hospital costs (£1690) and improved AFS (0.429 years), out to 7 years following randomisation. BET-first therefore dominated VB-first in the CEA. Similarly, in the health-related quality of life the CUA, BET-first was cost-saving with improved QALYs (£2524 and £2233 less hospital costs and 0.016 and 0.085 more QALYs at 2 and 3 years, respectively) and so dominated VB-first. This economic analysis therefore shows that BET-first is a cost-effective option from an NHS and societal perspective. The sensitivity analysis supported the base-case analysis and BET-first was found to be cost-effective at different willingness-to-pay thresholds. Similar findings were found in all other scenario analyses when considering costs of primary and other hospital healthcare services, taking a broader societal perspective, which includes out-of-pocket expenditure and the costs associated with productivity loss, patient’s adherence to study protocol, the impact of imputation by focusing on participants with complete hospital cost and EQ-5D-5L data only. However, these findings should be interpreted cautiously given the large number of imputed cost values and the substantial probability of a very small QALY difference. Study registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN27728689. Funding This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 12/35/45) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 65. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Background Many infancy-onset epilepsies have a poor prognosis for seizure control and neurodevelopmental outcome. Ketogenic diets can improve seizures in older children and adults unresponsive to antiseizure medicines. We aimed to determine the effectiveness of the ketogenic diet in reducing seizure frequency compared to further antiseizure medicine in infants with drug-resistant epilepsy. Methods In this randomised, open-label trial, 136 infants with epilepsy, aged 1–24 months, with > 4 seizures/week and a previous trial of ≥ 2 antiseizure medicines were recruited from 19 hospitals in the United Kingdom. Following a 1- or 2-week observation period, participants were randomised to receive the classical ketogenic diet or a further antiseizure medicine for 8 weeks, using a computer-generated schedule without stratification. Treatment allocation was concealed from research nurses involved in patient care, but not from participants. The primary outcome was the number of seizures/day recorded during weeks 6–8. All analyses were intention to treat. The trial is registered with the European Union Drug Regulating Authorities Clinical Trials Database (2013-002195-40). Findings Between 1 January 2015 and 30 September 2021, 136 eligible infants were randomised. Sixty-one (78%) of 78 assigned to a ketogenic diet and 47 (81%) of 58 assigned to antiseizure medicine had primary outcome data. At 8 weeks, the number of seizures per day, accounting for the baseline rate and randomised group, was not significantly different between groups [median (interquartile range) ketogenic diet 5 (1, 16); antiseizure medicine 3 (2, 11), incidence rate ratio 1.33, 95%, confidence internal 0.84 to 2.11; p = 0.22]. A similar number of infants reported at least one serious adverse event in both groups [antiseizure medicine: 24/56 (43%), ketogenic diet: 40/78 (51%)]. The most common serious adverse events were seizures in both groups. Three infants died during the course of the trial, all of whom were randomised to the ketogenic diet arm; deaths were considered to be unrelated to treatment. Interpretation There was no evidence that a ketogenic diet was better than further antiseizure medicine in achieving seizure control in infants with epilepsy. The two treatments were similarly tolerated and a ketogenic diet appears safe to use in infants with epilepsy. A ketogenic diet could be a treatment option in infants whose seizures continue despite trial of two standard antiseizure medicines. Study registration This study was registered as EudraCT 2013-002195-40. Funding This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation (EME) programme (NIHR award ref: 12/10/18) and is published in full in Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation; Vol. 11, No. 16. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information. Plain language summary Many babies with epilepsy continue to have seizures (‘fits’), despite taking medicines. These babies are unlikely to make the same developmental progress as babies without epilepsy. Ketogenic diets are high in fat and low in carbohydrate and have been shown to reduce seizures in older children and adults. Babies (age 1–24 months) with epilepsy, who still had seizures despite having tried medicines, either started a ketogenic diet or another medicine. They then stayed on this treatment for 8 weeks. We wanted to know whether there was a difference in the number of seizures in the last 2 weeks of treatments compared to before. Seventy-eight babies started a ketogenic diet and 58 started another medicine. Overall, the number of seizures babies had every day was similar in both groups. A similar number of babies in both groups either had to go to hospital for some reason or stay in hospital for longer. This was mostly because of seizures. Two babies suffered ‘sudden unexpected death in epilepsy’ and another died during a planned surgery. These deaths were not thought to be related to the ketogenic diet. Both the ketogenic diet and the medicines helped to reduce the number of seizures in the babies. Babies in both groups had similar side effects. Doctors could consider starting a ketogenic diet in babies who continue to have seizures even though they have tried medicines to stop their seizures. Scientific summary Background Many infancy-onset epilepsies are poorly responsive to antiseizure medicines (ASMs) with poor prognosis for neurodevelopmental outcome. Ketogenic diets (KDs), which are high-fat, low-carbohydrate diets, have been shown to reduce seizures in older children with drug-resistant epilepsy. No high-quality evidence is available for infants. Objectives In this open-label randomised controlled trial, we compared the efficacy of the classical KD to a further appropriate ASM in infants with drug-resistant epilepsy. The primary outcome was the number of seizures recorded during weeks 6–8, accounting for the baseline rate and randomised group. Secondary outcomes at 8 weeks were the number of infants seizure-free in weeks 6–8 of the intervention period, responder rate (defined as the number showing more than a 50% improvement in seizure frequency compared to baseline), tolerance to KD and relationship between medium-chain fatty acids and seizure control. Secondary outcomes at 12 months were retention on treatment, quality of life and neurodevelopmental outcome. Adverse events were recorded throughout the trial. Serious adverse events were reported to the study sponsor. Methods Infants (age 1–24 months) with epilepsy, with an average ≥ 4 seizures/week and previous trials of ≥ 2 ASMs were recruited from 19 hospitals in the UK. Following a 1- or 2-week observation period, during which there were no changes to regular ASMs (emergency seizure treatments continued as required), participants were randomised to receive a classical KD or a further ASM for 8 weeks, using a computer-generated schedule without stratification. An allocation ratio of 1 : 1.35 was used to account for the therapist effect in the KD group only. Treatment allocation was concealed from research nurses involved in patient care, but not from participants. The primary outcome was the number of seizures/day recorded during weeks 6–8. All analyses were intention to treat. The following assessments were performed in all infants prior to randomisation: medical history, physical examination, administration of the Infant Toddler Quality of Life Questionnaire™ (ITQOL-97; © HealthActCHQ Inc. 2013) and Vineland Adaptive Behaviour Scales (Vineland™-II), and clinical laboratory assessments. Food diaries required for diet calculation were returned from parents/guardians of all participants a maximum of 1 week into the observation period. Parents/carers were asked to keep daily seizure diaries throughout the 8-week treatment periods for participants in both arms. Thereafter, they were requested to reduce seizure recording to at least 1–2 days per week, as clinically indicated, until 28 days before the final 12-month visit, when daily seizure recording recommenced. Follow-up visits were arranged at 4 weeks, 8 weeks, and 6, 9 and 12 months. Assessments included clinical review, physical examination, documentation of seizure frequency from seizure diaries, review of adverse events and concomitant medication, clinical laboratory assessments (8 weeks, and 6 and 12 months) and completion of tolerability questionnaire by parents/carers together with research nurses, the ITQOL-97 (8 weeks and 12 months) and Vineland-II (12 months). After the 8-week assessment, according to the infant’s clinical response to treatment (seizure outcome and tolerability), KD or ASM was then continued or changed; those randomised to the ASM arm then had the opportunity to start KD. Results Of 136 eligible infants, 78 were randomised to KD and 58 to ASM. Of 78 infants who started KD, 67 (86%) continued to 8 weeks, of which 61 (78%) had primary outcome data available; 53 (91% of those randomised to ASM group) started a further ASM, 49 (84%) continued to 8 weeks and 47 (81%) had primary outcome data available. The median number of daily seizures was not significantly different in both groups at 8 weeks [KD 5 (1, 16); ASM 3 (2, 11), incidence rate ratio (IRR) 1.33, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84 to 2.11; p = 0.22]. The odds ratio (OR) of achieving ≥ 50% seizure reduction was 1.21 (95% CI 0.55 to 2.65) and 0.88 (0.27 to 2.80) for seizure freedom. A total of 7/63 infants (11%) in the KD group were seizure-free, compared with 6/48 (13%) in the ASM group (OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.27 to 2.80). A higher proportion of infants in the ASM group changed the number or dose of concurrent ASMs during the intervention period [24/48 (50%)] compared to KD [9/66 (14%)]. The side-effect score at 8 weeks was similar in both groups [KD median 40; interquartile range (IQR) 38–42; ASM median 41 IQR 39‒44) and there were no clinically significant differences other than those expected in clinical or laboratory parameters between groups. At 8 weeks, median scores within the ITQOL-97 were numerically higher (suggesting better health) in the KD group for 7 of the 12 concepts. The infant’s pain, its global behaviour, impact on parental time and family cohesion were equal between the two groups, although general perceptions of the infant’s health were numerically higher in the ASM arm. A numerically larger proportion of parents/guardians of infants in the KD group perceived their child’s health to be ‘much better than a year ago’ (10/40, 25%) compared to those in the ASM group (3/32, 9%); numerically more parents/guardians of infants in the ASM group perceived their child’s health to be ‘much worse than a year ago’ (8/32, 25%) compared to those in the KD group (2/40, 5%). Of 66 infants randomised to KD > 12 months before the study end date, 31 (47%) continued the diet to 12 months; of 47 randomised to further ASM > 12 months before the study end date, 21 (45%) continued the ASM to 12 months. For those who reported data, there were no differences between groups for any concept within the ITQOL-97 at 12 months, except for the infant’s temperament and mood (coefficient −6.09, 95% CI −11.63 to −0.54) and the infant getting along with others (coefficient −6.79, 95% CI −12.97 to −0.60), which favoured the ASM group. A similar proportion of parents/guardians of infants in both groups perceived their child’s health to be ‘much better than a year ago’ (12/24 50% ASM; 11/30 37% KD) or ‘much worse than a year ago’ (0/24, 0% ASM; 1/30, 3% KD). Within the Vineland-II there were neither significant differences between groups in the overall standardised score nor domain standard scores at 12 months. The Daily living domain sum of v-scale scores was nominally improved in the ASM group (coefficient 2.23, 95% CI −4.22 to −0.25). A total of 73 serious adverse events (SAEs) were reported in the ASM group and 161 in the KD group. A similar proportion of infants in both groups reported at least 1 SAE (43% ASM; 51% KD) – most commonly seizures. Three infants died in the KD arm, all considered unrelated to treatment. Conclusions There was no evidence that KD was better than further ASM in achieving seizure control in infants with epilepsy. The two treatments were similarly tolerated and KD appeared safe to use in infants with epilepsy. KD could be a treatment option in infants whose seizures continue despite trial of two standard ASMs. Further trials are needed with larger cohorts at 12-month follow-up and beyond, particularly to look at quality of life and neurodevelopment, perhaps with alternative study design. Study registration This study was registered as EudraCT 2013-002195-40. Funding This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation (EME) programme (NIHR award ref: 12/10/18) and is published in full in Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation; Vol. 11, No. 16. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Background Severe early-onset intrauterine growth restriction is associated with stillbirth, neonatal death and neurodevelopmental impairment. There is no treatment for intrauterine growth restriction with timely delivery being the only management option. Placentas from intrauterine growth restriction pregnancies often show failure to remodel maternal spiral arteries leading to a persistent vasoactive responsiveness. Sildenafil, a phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitor, potentiates naturally occurring nitrous oxide, encouraging vasodilation of vasoactive vessels. Previous studies in animal models and humans show recovery of placental function and improvement in fetal growth. The STRIDER trial aimed to address whether treatment with sildenafil is beneficial to fetal growth and perinatal and toddler outcomes. Methods The STRIDER trial was a superiority, randomised double-blind placebo-controlled trial that was carried out in 19 fetal medicine units in the United Kingdom. Women with a singleton pregnancy between 22+0 and 29+6 weeks’ gestation, with severe early-onset intrauterine growth restriction, were asked to participate. Women were randomised (1 : 1) to receive either sildenafil 25-mg three times daily or placebo until 31+6 weeks’ gestation or delivery. Women were stratified by site and their gestational age at randomisation (before 26+0 or at 26+0 weeks or later). Severe intrauterine growth restriction was defined as a combination of estimated fetal weight or abdominal circumference below the 10th percentile and absent or reversed end-diastolic blood flow in the umbilical artery on Doppler velocimetry. The primary outcome was the time from randomisation to delivery, measured in days with a 1-week difference deemed to be clinically significant. The phase 2 study followed up all babies alive at discharge to assess for cardiovascular function and neurodevelopment at 2 years of age. Results Between 21 November 2014 and 6 July 2016, a total number of 135 women were recruited to the study, of these 70 were assigned to sildenafil and 65 to the placebo. No difference was found in the median randomisation to delivery interval between sildenafil [17 days (interquartile range 7–24)] and placebo [18 days (8–28), p = 0.23]. Live births [relative risk 1.06, 95% confidence interval 0.84 to 1.33; p = 0.62], fetal deaths (relative risk 0.89, 95% confidence interval 0.54 to 1.45; p = 0.64), neonatal deaths (relative risk 1.33, 95% confidence interval 0.54 to 3.28; p = 0.53), and birthweight [mean difference −14 g (95% confidence interval −100 to 126); p = 0.81] did not differ between the treatment arms and no differences were found for other maternal or perinatal secondary outcomes. Eight serious adverse events were reported during the study (six in the placebo group and two in the sildenafil group); none of these were attributed to sildenafil. Seventy-five babies were discharged alive from the neonatal unit and of those 61 were available for follow-up with 32 treated with sildenafil and 29 with placebo. Of those that did not have a follow-up 1 baby died (placebo) and 3 declined follow-up and 10 were uncontactable. There was no difference in neurodevelopment, or blood pressure for infants treated with sildenafil versus placebo. Infants who received sildenafil had a greater head circumference compared to those who received placebo (median difference 49.25 cm, interquartile range 46.4–50.26 vs. 47.17 cm, 95% confidence interval 44.71 to 48.95). Conclusion Sildenafil did not prolong pregnancy or improve pregnancy outcomes. There was no effect from sildenafil treatment on infant neurodevelopment. Our data show that sildenafil should not be prescribed for fetal growth restriction. Trial registration This trial is registered as ISRCTN39133303. Funding This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation (EME) programme (NIHR award ref: 12/62/109) and is published in full in Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation; Vol. 11, No. 18. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information. Plain language summary Babies that are very small in the womb are at greater risk of a poor outcome to the pregnancy such as stillbirth and learning difficulties in surviving children. Usually, a baby grows small because the placenta, which feeds the baby, is poorly formed. The study wanted to know whether using a medication, which improves the blood supply to the placenta, will give the baby more nutrition and allow better growth. This would allow doctors to keep the baby inside the womb for longer. The study used a medication called sildenafil to improve the blood supply. To be sure if it worked, the study wanted to compare this drug against an identical looking blank tablet (placebo) so women and their healthcare professionals would not know what medication was being given. Women with very small babies and who were pregnant between 22 weeks and 0 days to 29 weeks and 6 days were asked to take part in the study. Treatment was three times a day and continued until delivery or 31 weeks and 6 days. A total of 135 women agreed to take part in the study. Seventy were given sildenafil and 65 were given placebo. A computer decided which medication would be given to which women with a 50 : 50 chance of each. Women were kept in the study until discharge of their baby from hospital. Surviving babies were seen with their mothers at 2 years of age to test for brain injury and problems with thinking, speech and language, or movement (neurodevelopment). The study showed no benefit of sildenafil when compared to placebo in helping the baby grow or in preventing early delivery. In surviving babies there was no benefit for neurodevelopment 2 years after treatment with sildenafil. The findings of our study mean that sildenafil should not be used for the treatment of small babies. Scientific summary Background Severe early-onset intrauterine growth restriction (IUGR) is associated with stillbirth, neonatal death and neurodevelopmental impairment. There is currently no treatment for IUGR with timely delivery being the only management option available. The researchers know from human placentas from IUGR pregnancies that there is often a failure to remodel the maternal spiral arteries within the uterus and myometrium. This inadequate remodelling leads to the persistence of a vasoactive responsiveness within these vessels. Sildenafil, a phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitor, potentiates naturally occurring nitrous oxide (NO), encouraging vasodilation of vasoactive vessels. Previous studies in animal models and human ex vivo samples have shown recovery of placental function and improvement in fetal growth. Small numbers of clinical trials have also shown an increase in fetal growth or vascular flow (Doppler studies) from maternal use of sildenafil. The STRIDER trial aims to address whether maternal treatment with sildenafil is beneficial to fetal growth and perinatal and toddler outcomes. Objectives The STRIDER United Kingdom (UK) study was designed to answer the following objectives in two phases; phase 1 – recruitment to a randomised controlled trial of sildenafil versus placebo for the treatment of early-onset intrauterine fetal growth restriction, and phase 2 – follow-up at 2 years of age to assess cardiovascular and neurodevelopmental outcomes effect the surviving infants. The primary objective of the phase 1 study was to determine whether sildenafil, compared to placebo therapy, delays the need to deliver a severely growth-restricted fetus by a minimum of 1 week. The secondary objectives were as follows: To investigate impact on fetal growth and fetal well‐being by comparing differential effect on vascular resistance in the uterine arteries, umbilical, fetal middle cerebral artery and fetal ductus venosus and differences in birthweight centiles in infants treated in utero with sildenafil and placebo. To examine, through collaboration with an international consortium, the hypothesis that sildenafil therapy compared to placebo therapy increases the rate of infant survival free of major neurodisability. To report frequency of adverse and serious adverse events (SAEs) associated with sildenafil use. To investigate the impact on maternal cardiovascular parameters by measurements of maternal heart rate and peripheral blood pressure (BP) before and after administration of study medication. To elucidate the precise mechanism and location of action of sildenafil in pregnancy by investigating the effects of sildenafil therapy on omental (representative of the wider maternal systemic vasculature), myometrial (uterine vasculature) and chorionic plate artery (placental vasculature) reactivity. The objective of the phase 2 follow-up study was to examine neurodevelopmental and cardiovascular outcomes at 2 years of age in children born to mothers who received sildenafil compared with placebo during pregnancy. It was hypothesised that: STRIDER UK children whose mothers received sildenafil will have improved neurodevelopmental outcomes at age 2–3 years (corrected) compared with controls exposed to placebo. There will be no difference in BP at 2–3 years (corrected) between STRIDER UK children whose mothers received sildenafil compared with controls exposed to placebo. Methods The STRIDER study was a Phase III clinical trial to quantify the effects of administration of sildenafil on pregnancy outcome in severe early‐onset IUGR. The study was designed as a randomised double-blind, placebo-controlled trial with sildenafil or placebo prescribed orally at a dose of 25 mg three times per day. All participants recruited had a singleton pregnancy between 22+0 weeks’ gestation and 29+6 weeks’ gestation with a diagnosis of IUGR and had agreed to expectant management. For the purpose of the study, IUGR was defined as a fetus with an estimated fetal weight or abdominal circumference below the 10th centile using local charts and absent or reversed end-diastolic flow in the umbilical artery on Doppler velocimetry. All participants were recruited from one of the 19 STRIDER research sites located in the UK. All sites were leading obstetric units within the UK with a high level of fetal medicine and neonatal services provided. Gestational age was confirmed by first trimester ultrasound and in each case, the diagnosis of severe early-onset IUGR was confirmed by a fetal medicine expert having excluded fetal anatomical abnormalities. Following diagnosis and informed consent, a full history, measurements of maternal cardiovascular parameters (BP and pulse rate), fetal biometry and Doppler velocimetry were taken. Maternal venepuncture for angiogenic biomarkers was also performed. All participants had further BP and pulse rate measurements and blood sampling 2 hours after receiving the first dose of the study drug. Subsequently, participants were followed up within 3–4 days and at weekly intervals thereafter, or earlier if clinically indicated. The remainder of clinical care was at the discretion of the local fetal medicine experts and included regular ultrasound assessment of growth and Doppler blood flow and antenatal cardiotocography. Study medication was over encapsulated (Sharp Clinical Services, Crickhowell, UK) to ensure that participants, clinicians and pharmacists were masked to the study drug. Medication was dispensed in 10-day supplies with a new supply being provided weekly to ensure there was no period where medication was missed. Treatment ended at 31+6 weeks’ gestation or delivery, whichever came first. All participants were advised of the potential side effects. Data on pregnancy outcome were collected prospectively from clinical maternity notes and entered onto a secure electronic case report form (eCRF) platform at research sites. Data quality and protocol compliance were monitored regularly by central and on-site monitoring methods. All surviving infants of mothers recruited to the STRIDER study were eligible and invited for follow-up. A study invitation pack was sent to all parents/carers of surviving children. This included an invitation letter, participant information sheet and informed consent form. Participants who did not contact the research team within 2 weeks were contacted by a member of the research team. Assessments took place in a clinical research setting or in the child’s home. Informed written consent was obtained before the assessment began. All assessments were performed by a single senior research psychologist with expertise in developmental assessment techniques. This researcher was blinded to treatment allocation. Assessments included the Cognitive, Language and Motor Subscales of the Bayley Scales of Infant and Toddler Development – III (BSID-III); Hempel’s Neurological Examination for Toddler Age to identify major neurological impairment (cerebral palsy; CP) and subtle deviations from typical neurological and neuromotor function. In addition, a cardiovascular assessment was undertaken, which included brachial systolic BP and diastolic BP and arterial stiffness, assessed as aortic (central) augmentation index (AIx). Where potential participants cancelled or failed to attend follow-up appointments on more than three occasions, they were invited to participate remotely. All such participants received a Follow-up questionnaire pack, which included participant information sheet, consent form and all questionnaires detailed as part of the main study in addition to the Ages and Stages Questionnaire-3 (in place of the BSID-III, neurodevelopmental assessment). The health status classification system – preschool version (HSCS-PS) is a parental (or clinician) proxy measurement of the health status of a child. The overall health status is described as a 10-element vector consisting of one level for each domain. In this study, to facilitate comparisons between groups, a total ‘disability score’ for the overall health state of a child was calculated as the sum of the level codes for the original domains. Therefore, the range of the disability score varied from 10 (no disability on any domain) to 41 (maximum disability on all 10 domains). The child behaviour checklist (CBCL) 1.5–5 was used to assess emotional and behavioural difficulties. Raw scores are normalised into T-scores [mean: 50, standard deviation (SD): 10]. Higher T-scores represent more problematic behaviour. T-scores below 60 are in the normal range, T-scores of 60–63 (84th to 90th percentile) are in the borderline range, and T-scores above 63 (above 90th percentile) are in the clinical range. The T-scores are dichotomised into typical (scores in the normal range) and atypical (scores in the borderline and clinical range). The behaviour rating inventory of executive function – preschool version (BRIEF-P) is a parent questionnaire for early assessment of executive function to assess severity of executive dysfunction in day-to-day situations. Age-based T-scores are computed for each subscale and index, and a score of 65 or higher is considered a clinically significant problem. Results The study recruited 135 participants between 21 November 2014 and 6 July 2016. A number of 75 participants were recruited before 26+0 weeks’ gestation and 60 between 26+0 and 29+6 weeks’ gestation. A total of 70 participants were randomly assigned to receive sildenafil and 65 to placebo. None of the participants withdrew their consent nor were lost to follow-up prior to delivery, therefore, additional ‘per-protocol’ analysis was not performed. Differences at baseline were not clinically important between the sildenafil group and the placebo group. The median gestation at randomisation was 24.4 weeks [interquartile range (IQR) 24.0–27.5]. Two babies were postnatally diagnosed with Down syndrome (one sildenafil and one placebo) and two had confirmed cytomegalovirus infection (one sildenafil and one placebo); all four babies were included in the intention to treat (ITT) analysis. There was no beneficial effect on maternal cardiovascular function from treatment with sildenafil. The follow-up phase was delayed due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on research staff’s availability and access to patients. Out of the 75 babies who were discharged alive from the neonatal unit, 61 babies (81.3%) were included in the follow-up phase. Of those not followed up, 1 baby died (placebo), 3 declined follow-up and 10 were uncontactable. By the nature of follow-up participants were not randomised by treatment leaving 32 mothers who had received sildenafil and 29 had received placebo. There was no difference in the sex, birthweight, gestation at delivery (median 29.2 weeks vs. 29.9 weeks), mode of delivery, or oxygen usage. The physical characteristics of the population available for follow-up showed no difference in height or weight. Head circumference was slightly larger in those treated with sildenafil (49.25, 46.43–50.26) versus placebo (47.18, 44.71–48.95). There was no difference between systolic and diastolic BP between those children treated with sildenafil or placebo. Median values were appropriate for children aged 2 years. The Bayley assessment showed no significant differences in cognitive, language (including receptive and expressive language), or motor (including fine and gross motor) subscales between children of sildenafil-and placebo-treated mothers. Total scores were somewhat lower than expected across all three domains compared with standard population norms (i.e. 100, SD = 15); however, the difference was neither clinically nor statistically significant. There was no difference between the sildenafil and placebo groups for the presence of CP reported by parents. Functional assessment with the BRIEF-P demonstrated no difference in adjusted T-scores between sildenafil and placebo for any of the assessed domains. Likewise, the median total CBCL scores and adjusted T-scores also showed no difference between babies whose mothers were treated with sildenafil versus placebo for any of the assessed domains. The HSCS scores are shown as a total score by domain and as individual components. There was no difference between infants who had received sildenafil to those who had received placebo for any of the domains assessed. It was not possible to record the HEMPEL assessments and as such neurology could not be assessed. Unfortunately, no children were able to tolerate the NICOM (Non-invasive Cardiac Output Monitor)cardiovascular test, leaving BP as the sole assessment of infant cardiovascular status. Conclusions The results of the STRIDER study demonstrated that sildenafil did not result in prolongation of pregnancy, improvements in fetal growth, or perinatal outcome when administered to pregnant women with a severely-growth restricted fetus. These results have subsequently been confirmed in a number of other studies. Our study demonstrated a lack of benefit on any neurodevelopmental, emotional or behavioural assessment from treatment with sildenafil. This study represents the first study to report to the impact of antenatal treatment of women with severe early-onset FGR on their infants’ well-being at 2 years of age. Along with the findings of no benefit on prolongation of pregnancy or perinatal outcome this study it confirms the ineffectiveness of this treatment to improve outcomes in babies with severe early-onset FGR. Further to this lack of benefit there were concerns raised during the Dutch STRIDER trial of increased perinatal mortality in the sildenafil group. Further assessment deemed this excess mortality to be predominantly due to persistent pulmonary hypertension of the neonates (PPHN), which has been proposed to be a pathophysiological mechanism of ‘rebound’ vasoconstriction after cessation of sildenafil. Both the UK and the New Zealand/Australia STRIDER Trials reviewed their data using the same criteria for PPHN as the Dutch STRIDER trial and did not find an increased mortality. The international STRIDER studies are committed to combine the study data in a prospective individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis to look for any possible long-term effect of sildenafil, particularly on neurodevelopmental and cardiovascular outcome. On current evidence, the researchers do not believe that there is likely to be any beneficial effect on fetal growth, perinatal outcomes or neurodevelopment in this patient group and would advise that further use of sildenafil in this population should be stopped. Prior to any further studies using PDE5 inhibitors to treat FGR being performed, pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic experiments specific to pregnancy should be performed to establish an efficacious therapeutic dose. Therefore, the STRIDER study showed no beneficial effect for any perinatal outcome for mother or baby from treatment with 25 mg sildenafil TDS for severe early-onset FGR. The follow-up study confirmed that there was no beneficial effect from maternal treatment with sildenafil on behavioural assessment performed at 2 years of age in the surviving infants. There was also no effect on infant BP from treatment with sildenafil. Trial registration This trial is registered as ISRCTN39133303. Funding This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation (EME) programme (NIHR award ref: 12/62/109) and is published in full in Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation; Vol. 11, No. 18. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Background Opioids kill more people than any other drug. Naloxone is an opioid antagonist which can be distributed in take-home ‘kits’ for peer administration (take-home naloxone). Aim To determine the feasibility of carrying out a definitive randomised controlled trial of take-home naloxone in emergency settings. Design We used Welsh routine data (2015–21) to test the feasibility of developing a discriminant function to identify people at high risk of fatal opioid overdose. We carried out a cluster randomised controlled trial and qualitative study to examine experiences of service users and providers. We assessed feasibility of intervention and trial methods against predetermined progression criteria related to: site sign-up, staff trained, identification of eligible patients, proportion given kits, identification of people who died of opioid poisoning, data linkage and retrieval of outcomes. Setting This study was carried out in the emergency environment; sites comprised an emergency department and associated ambulance service catchment area. Participants At intervention sites, we invited emergency department clinicians and paramedics to participate. We recruited adult patients who arrived at the emergency department or were attended to by ambulance paramedics for a problem related to opioid use with capacity to consent to receiving the take-home naloxone and related training. Interventions Usual care comprised basic life support plus naloxone by paramedics or emergency department staff. The take-home naloxone intervention was offered in addition to usual care, with guidance for recipients on basic life support, the importance of calling the emergency services, duration of effect, safety and legality of naloxone administration. Results Discriminant function With low numbers of opioid-related deaths (1105/3,227,396) and a high proportion having no contact with health services in the year before death, the predictive link between death and opioid-related healthcare events was weak. Logistic regression models indicated we would need to monitor one-third of the population to capture 75% of the decedents from opioid overdose in 1-year follow-up. Randomised controlled trial Four sites participated in the trial and 299 of 687 (44%) eligible clinical staff were trained. Sixty take-home naloxone kits were supplied to patients during 1-year recruitment. Eligible patients were not offered take-home naloxone kits 164 times: ‘forgot’ (n = 136); ‘too busy’ (n = 15); suspected intentional overdose (n = 3). Qualitative interviews Service users had high levels of knowledge about take-home naloxone. They were supportive of the intervention but noted concerns about opioid withdrawal and resistance to attending hospital for an overdose. Service providers were positive about the intervention but reported barriers including difficulty with consenting and training high-risk opioid users. Health economics We were able to calculate costs to train staff at three sites (£40 per AS and £17 in Site 1 ED). No adverse events were reported. Progression criteria were not met – fewer than 50% of eligible staff were trained, fewer than 50% of eligible patients received the intervention and outcomes were not retrieved within reasonable timescales. Future work The take-home naloxone intervention needs to be developed and evaluated in emergency care settings, with appropriate methods. Limitations The Take-home naloxone Intervention Multicentre Emergency setting study was interrupted by coronavirus disease. Conclusions This study did not meet progression criteria for intervention or trial methods feasibility, so outcomes were not followed up and a fully powered trial is not planned. Trial registration This trial is registered as ISRCTN13232859. Funding This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 16/91/04) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 74. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information. Plain language summary Emergency ambulance staff and doctors in the emergency department regularly administer naloxone to people who have overdosed, reversing effects of the opioid – so-called ‘take-home naloxone’ – to administer to others in an emergency. We don’t know whether take-home naloxone saves lives. We carried out this feasibility study to see whether: we could identify a high-risk population to include in a trial to determine whether take-home naloxone reduces deaths from overdose ambulance paramedics and emergency department staff could be trained, and would then give out take-home naloxone kits to drug users they see. We included four areas in the study. We randomly selected two for distribution of take-home naloxone to patients at risk of or following an overdose by emergency department clinicians and local ambulance paramedics. We attempted to identify people at high risk of death from opioid overdose. We collected data about patients that were eligible and received take-home naloxone in the two intervention areas. We carried out interviews to find out about the views of patients and staff who gave out the kits. At the start, we agreed criteria that should be met for us to recommend that a full evaluation be carried out. We could not reliably identify people at high risk of death from opioid overdose, as deaths were rare in the population, and previous health service usage was variable. Less than half of eligible staff were trained to supply take-home naloxone (299/687, 44%), and less than half of eligible patients were given take-home naloxone (60/277, 21.7%) over 1 year. Patients were not offered take-home naloxone because staff forgot, were too busy or suspected an intentional overdose. Other patients left before receiving a kit. Service users liked the idea of take-home naloxone kits being provided in the emergency setting but reported resistance to attending hospital following an overdose. Service providers were supportive of providing take-home naloxone in the emergency setting but reported challenges in consent and training. Conclusion This study found that it was not feasible to deliver or evaluate this form of take-home naloxone, using this study design, in emergency care. Scientific summary Parts of this summary have been reproduced from Jones M, Bell F, Benger J, Black S, Buykx P, Dixon S, et al. Protocol for Take-home naloxone In Multicentre Emergency (TIME) settings: feasibility study. Pilot Feasib Stud 2020;6(1):1–10. This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt and build upon this work, for commercial use, provided the original work is properly cited. See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The text below includes minor additions and formatting changes to the original text. Background Opioids, such as heroin, kill more people worldwide by overdose than any other type of drug, and death rates associated with opioid poisoning in the United Kingdom (UK) are at record levels. Naloxone is an opioid antagonist which can be distributed in ‘kits’ for administration by witnesses in an overdose emergency. This intervention is known as take-home naloxone (THN). We know that THN can save lives on an individual level, but there is currently limited evidence about the effectiveness of THN distribution on an aggregate level, in specialist drug service settings or in emergency service (ES) settings. Notably, we do not know whether THN kits reduce deaths from opioid overdose in at-risk populations, if there are unforeseen harms associated with THN distribution or if THN is cost-effective. To address this research gap, we aimed to determine the feasibility of a fully powered cluster randomised controlled trial (RCT) of THN distribution in emergency settings. Aim To determine the feasibility of carrying out a definitive RCT of THN in emergency settings. Objectives To determine: the best form of THN kit, training and delivery whether a trial clustered by emergency department (ED) catchment area and the associated ambulance service (AS) is deliverable, as assessed against predefined progression criteria related to intervention, trial design and methods. Design We assessed feasibility of intervention and trial methods based upon the following predetermined progression criteria. Intervention feasibility Sign-up of four sites, including ≥ 50% eligible staff to complete training in delivering the intervention at each intervention site. Identification of ≥ 75% of people who have presented to ED or AS with opioid overdose or an opioid use-related problem over a 12-month period. THN kits issued to ≥ 50% eligible patients over a 12-month period at intervention sites. Serious adverse event rate [to be defined in agreement with Data Monitoring and Ethics Committee (DMEC)] of no more than 10% difference in intervention sites to control sites at the conclusion of recruitment. Trial methods feasibility Identification and inclusion for follow-up of ≥ 75% of people who died of opioid poisoning in the following year in the study areas according to Office of National Statistics (ONS) mortality data (previous ONS data suggest between 140 and 180 such deaths across the 4 participating sites during the study period). Matching and data linkage in ≥ 90% of cases not dissented at the conclusion of quantitative data collection. Retrieval of primary and secondary outcomes from National Health Service (NHS) Digital and National Welsh Informatics Service within 6 months of projected timeline. As the intervention tested is for administration to recipients of the THN kits and peers who may suffer an overdose, we needed to find a way to identify cohorts to include in outcome comparisons. We therefore analysed Welsh routine data to test the feasibility of developing a discriminant function to identify a high-risk population for fatal opioid overdose. We scoped anonymised routine retrospective data from 1 January 2015 to 30 November 2021, sourced from the Welsh Demographic Service Dataset (WDSD) to define the study population. To categorise death associated with an opioid overdose, the annual district death extract (ADDE) dataset was used in conjunction with the WDSD to calculate an individual-level study end date. Finally, we considered critical care, ED and hospital admissions as well as substance misuse treatment for the 36 months up to the end of the study period. We carried out a RCT clustered by site in the emergency environment with a qualitative study to examine processes of implementation, patient safety, costs of training NHS staff and experiences of service users and providers. Two intervention sites (paired ED and local AS catchment area) were randomly selected from the four participating sites. Usual practice was continued in the other two sites, acting as controls. Alongside the RCT, we collected qualitative data via semistructured interviews with service users from substance use treatment centres and third-sector organisations. The interview questions were guided by literature around opioid overdose experience and emergency naloxone use, with the aim to explore how opioid users interact with the knowledge, behaviour and attitudes towards the use of THN kits and training to use the kits. Focus groups and interviews with service providers (paramedics and ED clinical staff) were conducted to discuss barriers in the provision of THN in the emergency setting as well as facilitators to this implementation. We assessed the feasibility of collecting costs associated with THN provision in the emergency setting by measuring the health service contacts and incorporating healthcare resource groups (HRGs) into the analysis to produce an overall cost. Setting This feasibility study was carried out in the emergency care environment, across study sites each centred on a receiving ED and defined geographically as the local AS catchment area for that receiving ED. Participants At intervention sites, we invited ED clinicians and paramedics to participate in the trial and recruited adult patients who arrived at the ED or were attended by ambulance paramedics for a problem related to opioid use with capacity to consent to receiving the THN and related training. Participants were to be identified for outcome comparison by application of the discriminant function, if completed, to the study site general populations. Interventions Usual care comprised administration of basic life support plus naloxone by paramedics or ED staff. The THN intervention was offered in addition to usual care and included a multi dose THN kit (Prenoxad) containing 2 mg naloxone hydrochloride 1 mg/1 ml solution for intramuscular (IM) injection, and instructions on the correct administration of the naloxone dose. Recipients also received guidance on: BLS; the importance of calling the ES; duration of effect; the safety of naloxone in terms of adverse events and overdose; and the legality of bystander administration of naloxone. Results TABLE S1Assessment against preset progression criteria Criteria Achieved Criteria met Sign-up of four sites, including ≥ 50% eligible staff to complete training in delivering the intervention at each intervention site Site 1: ED trained 81.1%, AS trained 54% of eligible staffSite 2: ED trained 8.1%, AS trained 33.8% of eligible staff No Identification of ≥ 75% of people who have presented to ED or AS with opioid overdose or an opioid use-related problem over a 12-month period Unable to assess Not known THN kits issued to ≥ 50% eligible patients over a 12-month period at intervention sites 21.7% of eligible patients were given kits No Serious adverse event rate (to be defined in agreement with the DMEC) of no more than 10% difference in intervention sites to control sites at the conclusion of recruitment No serious adverse events were reported Yes Identification and inclusion for follow-up of ≥ 75% of people who died of opioid poisoning in the following year in the study areas according to ONS mortality data (previous ONS data suggest between 140 and 180 such deaths across the four participating sites during the study period) We were able to identify decedents from opioid poisoning in Wales but were unable to produce a discriminant function which included this group in a sufficiently small section of the general population, or to test these methods in a second population No Matching and data linkage in ≥ 90% of cases not dissented at the conclusion of quantitative data collection Due to significant delays in permissions processes for routine- linked data retrieval from NHS Digital, and low administration of THN kits, we did not attempt to match and link records for patients recruited to the trial No Retrieval of routinely recorded primary and secondary outcomes from national repositories within six-months of projected timeline Again, due to significant delays in permissions processes for routine- linked data retrieval, and low administration of THN kits, we did not attempt to retrieve routinely recorded primary and secondary outcomes No Discriminant function With low numbers of opioid-related deaths (1105/3,227,396) and a high proportion of them having no contact with health services in the year before death, the predictive link between death and opioid-related healthcare events was weak. Logistic regression models indicated we would need to monitor one-third of the population to capture 75% of the decedents from opioid overdose in 1-year follow-up. RCT In total, 299 of 687 (43.5%) eligible staff were trained to supply THN kits to eligible patients at the two sites (Site 1: ED n = 107, AS n = 121; Site 2: ED n = 25, AS n = 46). Sixty THN kits were supplied to eligible patients during the recruitment period (Site 1: ED n = 36, AS n = 4; Site 2: ED n = 16, AS n = 4). Eligible patients were recorded as not being offered THN kits 164 times, with reasons reported for not offering eligible patients kits: staff forgot (n = 136); staff too busy (n = 15); and suspected intentional overdose (n = 3). Staff recorded 626 people as being considered for inclusion but found not to be eligible, with reasons listed as: uncooperative including being abusive towards staff (n = 55); lack of capacity (n = 35); reduced consciousness level (n = 41); patient in custody (n = 21); and patient absconded (n = 161). Qualitative interviews Service users had high levels of knowledge about THN, with variable previous access to kits. They generally supported the provision of THN kits and training in the emergency setting and felt that it should be expanded further to chemists and needle exchanges. They also noted the importance of including loved ones in training and felt that this gave them a sense of empowerment and motivation to help others in an overdose situation. They noted concerns with regards to opioid withdrawal and resistance to attending hospital for an overdose. The service users reported that the provision of THN kits and training to friends and family of opioid users would possibly be more beneficial and believed that incorporating THN provision into normal practice would help mitigate some of these barriers. Interviews and focus groups with service providers found that they were supportive about the provision of THN kits and training in the emergency setting. However, they also reported barriers including difficulties consenting and training opioid users, a high turnover of staff impacting the cascade of the intervention as well as negative attitudes towards the patient group and the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. No adverse events were reported. Conclusion This study did not meet progression criteria for intervention or trial methods feasibility, so outcomes were not followed up and a fully powered trial is not planned. There does appear to be appetite for THN kit provision and training in the emergency setting. We conclude that the THN intervention as defined and administered in the Take-home naloxone Intervention Multicentre Emergency setting (TIME) study was not feasible and should not therefore go forward to full trial. However, there may be space for further development of this complex intervention in emergency care – for example, for protocols to allow administration to family and friends of opioid users; as well as methods for definition and identification of study cohorts for outcome comparisons. Trial registration This trial is registered as ISRCTN13232859. Funding This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 16/91/04) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 74. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Background Rates of human immunodeficiency virus diagnoses in UnitedKingdom men who have sex with men were at a 10-year high in 2014; many recent infections indicated ongoing transmission. There was a need to increase testing rates, reduce late diagnosis and understand how to best allocate human immunodeficiency virus prevention resources. Objective We aimed to assess (1) the feasibility of human immunodeficiency virus self-testing among men who have sex with men, (2) whether the offer of free human immunodeficiency virus self-testing resulted in earlier diagnosis of human immunodeficiency virus in an online randomised controlled trial, (3) the cost-effectiveness of strategies for preventing human immunodeficiency virus in men who have sex with men, including free human immunodeficiency virus self-testing. Design We produced a systematic evidence map and conducted focus groups and interviews with men who have sex with men and relevant stakeholders to identify barriers and facilitators to human immunodeficiency virus self-testing. We conducted an internet-based randomised controlled trial (a human immunodeficiency virus Self-testing Public Health Intervention to assess whether free human immunodeficiency virus self-testingwith reminders results in earlier diagnosis of human immunodeficiency virus compared with standard of care. We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of human immunodeficiency virus prevention strategies in men who have sex with men in the UnitedKingdom using a simulation model. Data sources Databases included MEDLINE, EMBASE, Global Health, Social Policy and Practice, PsycInfo, Health Management Information Consortium, EBSCO CINAHL Plus, Cochrane Library and Web of Science. Review methods Searches combined key terms relating to human immunodeficiency virus with terms related to self-testing. Data were manually extracted through a standard form and then entered into an open-access relational map (HIVST.org). Setting Internet-based study conducted in England and Wales. Participants Participants were men (including trans men) and trans women aged ≥ 16 years old, resident in England or Wales, and not known to be human immunodeficiency virus-positive, who had ever had anal sex with a man. The qualitative work also included human immunodeficiency virus service providers and commissioners. Intervention At baseline participants were randomised (randomisation A) to the offer of a single, free baseline human immunodeficiency virus self-test versus no free human immunodeficiency virus self-test (no baseline test). At 3 months, eligible participants from the baseline test group were randomised (randomisation B) to regular offers of free human immunodeficiency virus self-testingevery 3 months for up to 24 months (regular test) versus no offer of free self-tests (no regular test). Main outcome measure The primary outcome for randomisation A was a confirmed new human immunodeficiency virus diagnosis within 3 months of randomisation (detection of prevalent infections, binary outcome). The primary outcome for randomisation B was the time from randomisation to a confirmed new human immunodeficiency virus diagnosis (detection of incident infections, time-to-event outcome). Results Focus groups (n = 47 men who have sex with men) and interviews (n = 18 key informants) showed that human immunodeficiency virus self-testing was a highly acceptable intervention for men who have sex with men, with potential to reduce barriers related to convenience, stigma and privacy. The Self-testing Public Health Intervention randomised controlled trial randomised 10,135 men whohave sex with menand trans women 3 : 2 to baseline test or no baseline test. There was no significant difference at 3 months in confirmed new human immunodeficiency virusdiagnoses [p = 0.64, 19/6049 (0.3%) in baseline test vs. 15/4062 (0.4%) in no beseline test], but human immunodeficiency virus testing rates were higher in baseline test. Following the second randomisation (n = 2308) to regular test versus no regular test there was no significant difference between groups in confirmed human immunodeficiency virus diagnoses although there was a substantial increase in testing rate in regular test versus no regular testwith no reduction in sexually transmitted infectiontesting. Modelling suggested that provision of oral tenofovir/emtricitabine pre-exposure prophylaxis increased human immunodeficiency virus testing, with anti-retroviral therapy initiation at diagnosis, and reductions in the level of condom-less sex, that each played an important role in decreasing human immunodeficiency virus incidence among men who have sex with men, and that the current human immunodeficiency virus incidence would have been double what it is if any one of them had not occurred. A combined substantial increase in human immunodeficiency virus testing and pre-exposure prophylaxis could avert 34% of infections. However, at the current cost-effectiveness threshold, a 16% reduction in the cost of delivery of testing and pre-exposure prophylaxis would be required for this scenario to offer value for money. Limitations The decline in human immunodeficiency virus incidence over the study period resulted in under-powering of the trial. However, we recruited a large number of men at risk of human immunodeficiency virus. A further limitation of the study is the low (but typical) completion rates of surveys, which may have introduced bias into the analysis of the secondary end points, although not the primary end point. Finally, the majority of the participants were white gay men, which may make our results less generalisable. Conclusions Human immunodeficiency virus self-testing is highly acceptable to men who have sex with men with potential to increase first and repeat human immunodeficiency virus testing and broaden testing options, particularly in among key sub-populations at risk of human immunodeficiency virus. The trial did not demonstrate that self-testing increased human immunodeficiency virus diagnoses linked to care, but was underpowered to do so. Future work Future research includes investigating the role of marginalisation based on ethnicity, migration status, sexual orientation and education in making testing decisions, and how social exclusion and health inequalities shape engagement with human immunodeficiency virus self-testing. Study registration This study is registered as ISRCTN20312003. Funding This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Programme Grants for Applied Research Programme (NIHR award ref: RP-PG-1212-20006) and is published in full in Programme Grants for Applied Research; Vol. 12, No. 8. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information. Plain language summary Background In 2014, new human immunodeficiency virus diagnoses among gay men in the UnitedKingdom were increasing year on year. New ways of testing for human immunodeficiency virus, such as self-testing (whereby a person can do the test themselves without a health worker there and then read the result within 15 minutes) had been developed, but it was not known whether offering self-testing would increase the number of new human immunodeficiency virus diagnoses in gay men. Methods We did an internet trial to see whether giving gay men a free human immunodeficiency virus self-testing kit would increase the number diagnosed with human immunodeficiency virus compared to not being given a free human immunodeficiency virus self-testing kit. We also looked at whether regular provision of human immunodeficiency virus self-testing kits every 3 months over a 2-year period would allow a more prompt diagnosis among those who got a new human immunodeficiency virus infection. Finally, we looked at value for money of providing free human immunodeficiency virus self-testing and other interventions including pre-exposure prophylaxis and early human immunodeficiency virus treatment (at the point of diagnosis), to prevent human immunodeficiency virus infection. Results The ease and privacy of human immunodeficiency virus self-testing meant that it was an acceptable way of testing for men who have sex with men. Over 10,000 men who have sex with menand trans people took part in the trial but there was no difference after 3 months in the number of gay men who were newly diagnosed with human immunodeficiency virus who had been provided with a free self-test kit compared to the group that had not. We found that a combination of human immunodeficiency virus-prevention interventions including an increase in human immunodeficiency virus testing, pre-exposure prophylaxis, early human immunodeficiency virus treatment at the point of diagnosis, and a reduction in the levels of condom-less sex each played an important role in decreasing human immunodeficiency virus incidence among men who have sex with men. Conclusions Human immunodeficiency virus self-testing was acceptable to men who have sex with men. Although human immunodeficiency virus self-testing increased how often men who have sex with men tested, it did not increase human immunodeficiency virus diagnosis. Scientific summary Background In 2014, the number of newly human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) diagnosed men who have sex with men (MSM) was at an all-time high and the 3000 new infections/year were a significant cost to the NHS, accruing £1 billion in future costs every year. Approximately 25% of all HIV-positive MSM were unaware of their infection and disproportionately contributed to onward transmission (between 60% and 80% of transmissions) and late presentations, with greatly increased risk of death. Uptake and frequency of HIV testing among MSM in 2014 was low. Innovative strategies, such as HIV self-testing (HIVST), which, due to associated confidentiality and convenience, could increase initial and repeat testing rates and diagnosis, had not been evaluated. It was also unclear whether other HIV prevention initiatives in addition to self-testing could offer value for money. In practice, assessing the cost-effectiveness of a range of prevention interventions required modelling. Aims and objectives Our aim was to assess the acceptability, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of HIVST, and to examine the best economic value of a wider set of HIV prevention initiatives. Main research questions For MSM in the UK: Does provision of free HIVST result in the earlier diagnosis of HIV infection? Which HIV prevention initiatives are most cost-effective? Specific objectives Workstream 1: feasibility To identify the most up-to-date evidence of HIVST among MSM (systematic review and systematic mapping process). To increase understanding of accessibility and feasibility of HIVST among MSM and identify barriers and facilitators to HIVST in a range of models and contexts (focus groups and interviews). To explore how those utilising self‐tests experience HIVST and the implications for further intervention development and scale‐up. To explore how the HIV Self-testing Public Health Intervention (SELPHI) intervention might be experienced by and the pathways to impact on behaviour for different groups of randomised controlled trial (RCT) participants. To develop and undertake a process evaluation to assess what worked well about the RCT intervention and for whom. Workstream 2: intervention To assess whether free self-testing for HIV with reminders to test results in earlier diagnosis of HIV infection compared with standard of care through an internet-based, randomised trial (SELPHI). To explore testing pathways, practices, effects and perspectives on self-testing through qualitative interviews, including in key groups (Asian, black and Latin American MSM and trans people). Workstream 3: modelling and economic evaluation To estimate HIV incidence and predictors and describe risk behaviours in HIV-negative MSM at the time of HIV infection and after diagnosis through a web-based longitudinal cohort study to provide key parameters for the cost-effectiveness model. To identify efficacious existing HIV prevention strategies in MSM from high-income countries (systematic review). To estimate the cost of health care for people diagnosed with HIV living in England and Wales. To model the cost-effectiveness of HIV prevention strategies, including HIV testing interventions, using a simulation model to determine the cost-effectiveness (from an NHS perspective with outcomes as quality-adjusted life-years) of strategies for preventing HIV transmission, alone and in combination. Methods We divided the programme into three workstreams that were undertaken between 2015 and 2021. Workstream 1: feasibility Study 1A: we conducted a systematic mapping process from which the outputs were used to populate the HIV self-testing and research policy hub website HIVST.org. We collaborated with the World Health Organization (WHO) on four systematic reviews to provide the foundation for the updated WHO Global Guidelines on HIVST, which was launched in December 2019. Study 1B: we undertook six focus-group discussions (FGDs) with MSM to increase understanding of accessibility and feasibility of HIV self-testing among MSM and identify barriers and facilitators in a range of models and contexts to inform development of the intervention. Eighteen key informant interviews were conducted with service providers and commissioners to explore similar themes as the MSM FGD. Study 1C: development of manual and materials to promote and support the interventions in the RCT and RCT study website design. Study 1D: we undertook a process evaluation to examine the implementation of the planned intervention in the SELPHI RCT. The process evaluation explored the mechanisms of impact, and contextual factors that affect impact and potential normalisation of the intervention with the target population. Workstream 2: intervention Study 2A: building on the work from workstream (WS) 1 to inform the design of the trial and intervention, we undertook a RCTto assess whether offering free HIVST kits via the internet increased the rate of HIV diagnosis in MSM and trans people with linkage to clinical care. The trial aimed to enrol 10,000 HIV-negative participants, age > 16 years, resident in England or Wales, who were willing to provide name, date of birth and a valid e-mail address and who gave consent to linkage with surveillance and clinical databases. Online advertising was used to recruit men potentially interested in HIVST through the geo-location social-sexual networking applications (apps) (Grindr, Growlr, Scruff and Hornet) as well as targeted Facebook advertising. In a two-stage randomisation process, participants were first randomised (3 : 2) to receive a free baseline HIVST or no free baseline HIVST (randomisation A). At 3 months, participants allocated to receive a baseline HIVST were subsequently randomised (1 : 1) to receive the offer of regular (every 3 months) free HIVST, with testing reminders, versus no such offer (randomisation B) if they met further eligibility criteria. The primary outcome for randomisation A was a confirmed new HIV diagnosis within 3 months of randomisation (detection of prevalent infections, binary outcome). The primary outcome for randomisation B was the time from randomisation to a confirmed new HIV diagnosis (detection of incident infections, time-to-event outcome). The primary analyses compared the randomised groups as allocated (intention to treat). New HIV diagnoses were principally identified through linkage to national HIV surveillance databases maintained by the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA). During the pilot phase, we conducted a mixed-methods study to assess trial feasibility and intervention acceptability using quantitative data from advertising sources and RCT surveys alongside qualitative data from a nested substudy. Study 2B: as part of the extensive qualitative work in WS2, we conducted a series of face-to-face and remote interviews with MSM and trans people participating in SELPHI (from both intervention arms) to examine experiences of those utilising HIVST and the implications for further intervention development and scale-up. We focused on interviewing specific groups of participants who may have unique experiences with HIVST, including trans people, and MSM from Asian, black and Latin American backgrounds and a small group of MSM who reported harm from the study. Workstream 3: modelling and economic evaluation Study 3A: we conducted a 3-year web-based longitudinal prospective cohort study in MSM, the Attitudes to and UnderstandingRisk of Acquisition of HIV (AURAH2) study, which used 4-monthly online questionnaires to collect information on HIV status, HIV testing history, recent sexual behaviour, health and lifestyle factors and sexually transmitted infection (STI) diagnoses from 2015 to 2018. We linked all AURAH2 study participants data to the national HIV surveillance database managed by UKHSA (previously called Public Health England till October 2021). Study 3B: to inform the cost-effectiveness modelling, we undertook a systematic review of HIV prevention strategies for MSM among high-income settings using published studies from 2012 up until 2021. The systematic review identified and described studies evaluating the efficacy or effectiveness of behavioural HIV-prevention interventions for reducing HIV incidence among MSM in high-income countries. Study 3C: to better understand the cost-effectiveness of preventing HIV infection, we estimated the healthcare costs of people diagnosed with HIV living in England and Wales using data from a large English HIV treatment centre’s electronic patient record system which was combined with National Reference Costs for England to estimate the frequency of hospital attendances (including inpatient episodes, day-case visits and outpatient visits) and costs. Study 3D: finally we developed an existing individual-based stochastic model that simulates the UK population of MSM from the start of the epidemic, tracking detailed levels of condom-less anal sex with long-term and casual partners and hence risk of HIV acquisition. The Synthesis model was calibrated using longitudinal patterns of condom-less sex, particularly around the time of HIV infection, changes in risk behaviour as a result of receiving a diagnosis of HIV in MSM, and the proportion of men likely to have been infected by a long-term partner, so that the cost-effectiveness of all relevant prevention activities could be estimated. Results Workstream 1: feasibility The systematic map consolidated all emerging evidence related to HIVST and populated HIVST.org by systematically searching databases and the abstracts of five conferences from 2006, with monthly automated database searches until June 2019. We conducted four systematic reviews using the results from the systematic map to identify eligible studies for each review. The main review was a meta-analysis of RCT data relating to key populations that compared the effects of HIVST with standard HIV testing. It demonstrated that HIVST was safe and increased testing uptake, frequency and yield of positive results for MSM and trans people without negative effects on linkage to HIV care, STI testing, condom use or social harm for MSM and trans people. The FGDs showed that HIVST was a widely acceptable intervention. MSM reported that HIVST reduced barriers related to convenience, stigma and privacy concerns and that HIVST facilitated more frequent testing, with the potential to reduce STI screening frequency. Interviews with key informants demonstrated the value of the increased choice that HIVST provides but highlighted the need to provide direct pathways into standard testing services and HIV care. Workstream 2: intervention An internet-based, open-label, randomised trial was developed informed by the feasibility work in WS1. The mixed-methods study evaluating the pilot phase of the RCT demonstrated that recruiting to the RCT was feasible, that the intervention was acceptable to participants and the kit had high reported usability. In total 10,111 men were randomized, 6049 to a free HIV self-test at baseline (BT), and 4062 to no baseline test (nBT). Results from randomisation A demonstrated that of those randomised to a free HIV self-test at baseline, 73.5% reported using the HIVST kit. There were 34 new HIV diagnoses across both arms of the study (19 in BT and 15 in nBT) and, of those newly diagnosed, a large proportion had not tested for HIV in the previous 12 months. There was no significant difference between arms at 3 months in confirmed new HIV diagnoses that had linked to care (the primary outcome of the trial). Participants randomised to BT were more likely to self-report testing for HIV in the 3 months after enrolment than nBT [BT 4368/4511 (97%) vs. nBT 670/1574 (43%)]. In randomisation B, 2308 men were randomised, 1161 to the offer of regular (3-monthly) HIVST [regular test(RT)] and 1147 to no regular HIVST offer (nRT). Men in RT were much more likely to HIV test in each 3-month period compared with men in nRT. As expected, survey completion rates decreased over time and ranged from 47% to 4%. However, there was no significant difference in confirmed HIV diagnoses between arms [RT 10/1161 (0.9%) vs. nRT 8/1147 (0.7%)]. There were also no statistical differences in STI testing, STI diagnoses, or reported CAI between the groups. HIVST facilitated more frequent testing, with the potential to reduce STI screening frequency. Our mixed-methods substudy which interviewed trans people, and also used trial data, demonstrated that HIVST increased testing uptake and frequency by three times compared with standard care. Trans people reported HIVST benefits included increased autonomy, privacy, convenience and the avoidance of healthcare providers perceived to be discriminatory and services that increased gender dysphoria. The study of Asian, black and Latin American MSM showed that these groups were often excluded from lesbian gay bisexual trans queer + social environments because of their ethnicity. This had a potential downstream impact constraining the development of testing norms drawn from community and society. In addition, MSM from ethnic minority backgrounds sometimes had difficulty accessing bricks-and-mortar sexual health services, which HIVST mitigated. The study of harms arising in the RCT found that these were very uncommon (reported by 1–2%). Harms were transient and most resolved without requiring intervention. Workstream 3: modelling and economic evaluation The AURAH2 study recruited 1167 MSM into the baseline study, of whom 622 joined the online component and were followed up over 3 years. In line with national data, the study demonstrated that there had been a substantial decline in HIV incidence among MSM over the study period and that factors associated with incident HIV were injecting drug use, chemsex and high-risk sexual behaviour. Results from the study also showed that pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) awareness and use increased substantially over the study period. The systematic review of HIV prevention strategies among MSM in high-income countries identified 36 original papers, which were included in the review. Overall, PrEP was identified as the most effective intervention for reducing HIV incidence. The cost of caring for people with diagnosed HIV infection using routinely collected data in combination with information on national unit costs was estimated to be £522 per quarter, excluding the costs of antiretroviral treatment. Outpatient visits accounted for most of the hospital activity, and for total costs. A higher quarterly cost was associated with being a new patient and having a low cluster of differentiation 4 count category, followed by current viral non-suppression or previous virological failure. Results from the model-based economic evaluation showed that combination prevention, including a PrEP strategy, played a major role in the reduction in HIV incidence observed so far in the UK among MSM. Continuation of current activities may allow achievement of virtual HIV elimination among MSM in the UK and our modelling suggests they are likely to be cost-effective activities according to standard UK norms. Future steps Further work should aim to support the roll-out of HIVST at a national level to help address inequalities in access to HIV testing services that are experienced in particular by marginalised groups of MSM. Conclusion Human immunodeficiency virus self-testing is an acceptable and feasible HIV prevention tool for MSM and trans people. Although HIVST broadens the options for testing, and increases testing regularity, the trial results did not demonstrate that HIVST increased rates of HIV diagnosis. This likely reflects major national declines in HIV infections in MSM in the UK, which occurred after the study was planned and meant the study was not sufficiently powered to detect a difference. There were also no statistical differences in STI testing, STI diagnoses, or reported CAI between the groups. The cost-effectiveness evaluation found that strategies to increase the demand for HIV testing and condom and PrEP use are likely to substantially improve health outcomes. A reduction in the cost of delivery of HIV testing and PrEP is necessary in order to provide value for money. Trial registration This study is registered as ISRCTN20312003. Funding This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Programme Grants for Applied Research Programme (NIHR award ref: RP-PG-1212-20006) and is published in full in Programme Grants for Applied Research; Vol. 12, No. 8. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Background The presence of dental caries impacts on children’s daily lives, particularly among those living in deprived areas. There are successful interventions across the United Kingdom for young children based on toothbrushing with fluoride toothpaste. However, evidence is lacking for oral health improvement programmes in secondary-school pupils to reduce dental caries and its sequelae. Objectives To determine the clinical and cost effectiveness of a behaviour change intervention promoting toothbrushing for preventing dental caries in secondary-school pupils. Design A multicentre, school-based, assessor-blinded, two-arm cluster randomised controlled trial with an internal pilot and embedded health economic and process evaluations. Setting Secondary schools in Scotland, England and Wales with above-average proportion of pupils eligible for free school meals. Randomisation occurred within schools (year-group level), using block randomisation stratified by school. Participants Pupils aged 11–13 years at recruitment, who have their own mobile telephone. Interventions Two-component intervention based on behaviour change theory: (1) 50-minute lesson delivered by teachers, and (2) twice-daily text messages to pupils’ mobile phones about toothbrushing, compared with routine education. Main outcome measures Primary outcome: presence of at least one treated or untreated carious lesion using DICDAS4–6MFT (Decayed, Missing and Filled Teeth) in any permanent tooth, measured at pupil level at 2.5 years. Secondary outcomes included: number of DICDAS4–6MFT; presence and number of DICDAS1–6MFT; plaque; bleeding; twice-daily toothbrushing; health-related quality of life (Child Health Utility 9D); and oral health-related quality of life (Caries Impacts and Experiences Questionnaire for Children). Results Four thousand six hundred and eighty pupils (intervention, n = 2262; control, n = 2418) from 42 schools were randomised. The primary analysis on 2383 pupils (50.9%; intervention 1153, 51.0%; control 1230, 50.9%) with valid data at baseline and 2.5 years found 44.6% in the intervention group and 43.0% in control had obvious decay experience in at least one permanent tooth. There was no evidence of a difference (odds ratio 1.04, 95% confidence interval 0.85 to 1.26, p = 0.72) and no statistically significant differences in secondary outcomes except for twice-daily toothbrushing at 6 months (odds ratio 1.30, 95% confidence interval 1.03 to 1.63, p = 0.03) and gingival bleeding score (borderline) at 2.5 years (geometric mean difference 0.92, 95% confidence interval 0.85 to 1.00, p = 0.05). The intervention had higher incremental mean costs (£1.02, 95% confidence interval −1.29 to 3.23) and lower incremental mean quality-adjusted life-years (−0.003, 95% confidence interval −0.009 to 0.002). The probability of the intervention being cost-effective was 7% at 2.5 years. However, in two subgroups, pilot trial schools and schools with higher proportions of pupils eligible for free school meals, there was an 84% and 60% chance of cost effectiveness, respectively, although their incremental costs and quality-adjusted life-years remained small and not statistically significant. The process evaluation revealed that the intervention was generally acceptable, although the implementation of text messages proved challenging. The COVID-19 pandemic hampered data collection. High rates of missing economic data mean findings should be interpreted with caution. Conclusions Engagement with the intervention and evidence of 6-month change in toothbrushing behaviour was positive but did not translate into a reduction of caries. Future work should include work with secondary-school pupils to develop an understanding of the determinants of oral health behaviours, including toothbrushing and sugar consumption, particularly according to free school meal eligibility. Trial registration This trial is registered as ISRCTN12139369. Funding This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 15/166/08) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 52. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information. Plain language summary What was the problem? Tooth decay has an impact on children and young people’s daily lives, particularly those living in deprived areas. For young children, programmes to improve toothbrushing with fluoride toothpaste help prevent tooth decay. The Brushing RemInder 4 Good oral HealTh trial (BRIGHT) investigated whether a secondary-school-based toothbrushing programme would work. What did we do? We developed a new programme which included a lesson and twice-daily text messages sent to pupils’ phones. In total, 4680 pupils, aged 11–13 years, from 42 secondary schools in the United Kingdom took part in the trial. At each school, one year group was randomly selected to receive the programme, while the other year group did not receive it. All pupils were followed up for 2.5 years to see whether there were any differences in levels of tooth decay, frequency of toothbrushing, plaque or quality of life. We also considered the programme’s value for money and the views of pupils and school staff. What did we find? We followed up 2383 pupils and found no difference in tooth decay, plaque or quality of life. We found those who had the programme were more likely to brush their teeth twice daily after 6 months than those who did not. The programme was not good value for money overall. However, the programme appeared to be of more benefit at preventing tooth decay in pupils eligible for free school meals compared to those not eligible. In the schools with more pupils eligible for free school meals, the chance of the programme representing good value for money increased. The programme was generally liked by the pupils and school staff. Some pupils found the text messages useful, although others said they were annoying. What does this mean? The programme helped pupils brush their teeth more frequently in the short term, but this did not lead to less tooth decay. Further research is needed to understand how to prevent tooth decay in secondary-school pupils. Scientific summary Background Reducing the high prevalence and severity of dental caries in the UK is a public health priority. Dental caries is largely preventable with several evidence-based child oral health promotion interventions including toothbrushing with fluoride toothpaste. However, evidence is lacking for interventions targeting toothbrushing practices to reduce dental caries and its sequelae (pain, infection and tooth loss) in secondary-school pupils. The Brushing RemInder 4 Good oral HealTh (BRIGHT) trial investigated a two-component behaviour change intervention (lesson and text messages) to prevent dental caries in secondary-school pupils. Objectives Conduct an internal pilot phase with feasibility components to: Tailor the intervention to young people. Test trial processes. Assess feasibility of within-school cluster randomisation (by year group). Investigate the intervention’s effect on caries prevalence, twice-daily toothbrushing, oral health-related quality of life and oral health behaviours. Investigate the intervention’s cost effectiveness. Explore implementation, mechanisms of impact and context through process evaluation. Methods Design A multicentre, school-based, assessor-blinded, two-arm cluster randomised controlled trial with an internal pilot phase, and embedded health economic and process evaluations. Criteria determining progression to the main phase were pre-specified and reviewed within the internal pilot phase. Setting Secondary schools in Scotland, England and Wales with above national average percentage of pupils eligible for free school meals (FSM) were recruited. Schools had to have pupils aged 11–16 years and at least 60 pupils per year group. Participant recruitment Pupils aged 11–13 years (Years 7 and 8 in England and Wales; S1 and S2 in Scotland) in participating schools were eligible to take part and received an information session about BRIGHT. Parents/carers had 2 weeks to decline their child’s participation. Pupils who had not been opted out were invited to participate by completing a consent form and providing their mobile telephone number. If they did not own a mobile telephone or could not provide their number, they were ineligible. Sample size We proposed to recruit 5040 pupils from 42 schools (84 year groups) to give 90% power to detect a reduction in the proportion of pupils with obvious decay experience from 34% to 26%, assuming: within-school (year-group level) randomisation, partial contamination effects (i.e. those contaminated gain half the treatment benefits) for 27% of the control group, recruiting an average of 60 pupils per year group, an intracluster correlation coefficient of 0.02% and 20% attrition at follow-up. A sample size of 10 schools was considered sufficient to test internal pilot objectives. Randomisation Year groups within schools were randomised 1 : 1 to the intervention or control arm. An allocation sequence, stratified by school using blocks of size two, was generated by an independent statistician. Once each school’s baseline assessments were completed, the year groups were randomised by allocation to the next available block. Trial interventions The intervention consisted of two components: (1) a 50-minute classroom-based session (CBS) about dental health delivered by teachers using a lesson plan and pupil-facing materials followed by (2) a series of twice-daily text messages to participants’ mobile phones about toothbrushing. Year groups allocated to the control arm received routine education only. Follow-up Assessment time points were baseline, after the lesson (internal pilot only), 12 weeks (internal pilot only), 6 months, 1, 2 (internal pilot only) and 2.5 years following lesson delivery. Pupils completed self-report questionnaires at all these time points. Dental examinations at baseline, 2 and 2.5 years included assessment of caries, plaque and gingival bleeding. Parents/carers were sent a resource use questionnaire at baseline, and 1, 2 and 2.5 years. Note, the descriptors of the time points for the assessments (e.g. 2.5 years) reflect the planned follow-up schedule and are used throughout the report; however, some of the actual average time intervals of follow-up varied from that planned (e.g. the actual average length of follow-up at the 2.5-year assessment was closer to 3 years as this was delayed due to disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic). Primary outcome The primary outcome was the presence of at least one treated or untreated carious lesion in any permanent tooth, measured at the pupil level during the 2.5-year dental assessment using DICDAS4–6MFT (Decayed, Missing and Filled Teeth). Secondary outcomes Secondary outcomes assessed during the dental assessments were DICDAS4–6MFT at 2 years, and the following at 2 and 2.5 years: the presence of at least one treated or untreated carious lesion in any permanent tooth measured using DICDAS1–6MFT, the number of permanent DICDAS4–6MFT and DICDAS1–6MFT, plaque score (modified gingival index of Löe), bleeding score (gingival index) and number of teeth with bleeding gingivae. Participant-reported secondary outcome measures were: twice-daily toothbrushing, health-related quality of life measured by the Child Health Utility 9D (CHU9D) and oral health-related quality of life assessed using Caries Impacts and Experiences Questionnaire for Children (CARIES-QC). Statistical methods Both the clinical effectiveness and economic analyses were conducted to pre-specified and externally endorsed analysis plans. Analyses were conducted in STATA v17 (StataCorp LP, College Station, TX, USA) following the principles of intention to treat using two-sided statistical tests assessed at the 5% significance level. Baseline data were summarised descriptively overall and by randomised arm. The primary outcome was analysed using mixed-effect logistic regression, adjusting for the number of DICDAS4–6MFT and school year at baseline as fixed effects, and school as a random effect. Sensitivity analyses were conducted in which year group, nested within school, was additionally included as a random effect, and including additional covariates that were significantly associated with missing primary outcome data. A further sensitivity analysis excluded pupils whose dental assessments were completed outside of 3 months either side of the average length of follow-up for the 2.5-year time point. A complier-average causal effect (CACE) analysis, using a two-stage instrumental variable regression approach with the randomised group as the instrumental variable, was implemented to assess the impact of: attending the lesson; attending the lesson and receiving at least seven text messages a week for the first 12 weeks; and number of text messages sent. Subgroup analyses considered whether or not the intervention effect differed by FSM status, number of carious teeth at baseline and whether the school was recruited during the pilot or main trial phase. The secondary outcome of presence of at least one DICDAS1–6MFT was analysed as described for the primary outcome. The number of permanent DICDAS4–6MFT and DICDAS1–6MFT and number of teeth with bleeding gingivae were analysed using mixed-effect negative binomial regression, self-reported twice-daily toothbrushing via mixed-effect logistic regression and plaque, bleeding and CARIES-QC scores via mixed-effect linear regression. Models were adjusted for school year and associated baseline value of the outcome as fixed effects and school as a random effect. Attendance data, adverse events and safeguarding issues are summarised descriptively. Economic analysis The economic evaluation was undertaken using individual-level trial data, took the NHS perspective and generated quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) using the CHU9D. The time horizon of the analysis was set to cover all relevant costs and outcomes. Parental questionnaires were used to collect data on dental treatments and child health-related quality of life. Other sources of cost data were used in relation to the text messages and the lesson. Results Clinical effectiveness results Of the 14,083 pupils approached in the 42 recruited schools, 4699 (33.4%) were eligible and consented and were asked to complete baseline data collection; however, 19 withdrew pre randomisation leaving 4680 pupils (92.9% of our target of 5040) included in the randomised sample (intervention, n = 2262; control, n = 2418). The average number of pupils recruited per school was 111.4 [standard deviation (SD) 35.9, median 107, range 46–189] and per year group was 55.7 (SD 21.6, median 53, range 13–119). The average age of pupils at recruitment was 12.7 years (SD 0.6), 54.2% were female and 21.9% were eligible for FSM. Over three-quarters (77.6%) reported brushing their teeth at least twice a day. There was a valid baseline dental assessment for 4625 pupils; 1603 (34.7%) had evidence of obvious decay experience (presence of DICDAS4–6MFT in at least one permanent tooth) and 2929 (63.3%) had at least one treated or untreated carious lesion in any permanent tooth (DICDAS1–6MFT). Baseline data were similar between the intervention and control groups. Confirmation of lesson delivery was received from 39 of the 42 schools, with an estimated 2016 (89.1%) of 2262 pupils randomised to the intervention group attending. Text messages were sent to 2258 (99.8%) intervention pupils. The other four withdrew shortly after receiving the lesson and so their messages were not commenced. Participants were sent text messages until they requested them to stop or until 12 July 2020 (when a technical error occurred with the text provider that meant texts stopped being sent). A total of 962 intervention participants (42.5%) withdrew from receiving the text messages, a median of 2.8 months after they commenced (range 1 day to 30 months). Participants were sent messages for between 0 and 127 weeks (approximately 30 months, mean 53.4 weeks, SD 35.4, median 62). This equated to between 1 and 1708 text messages (mean 694.5, SD 468.9, median 789). On average, 71.4% of the text messages sent to a participant were successfully delivered. At 2.5 years, 1043 out of 2383 pupils (43.8%; intervention 514, 44.6%; control 529, 43.0%) had obvious decay experience in at least one permanent tooth. There was no evidence of a difference between the intervention and control groups [odds ratio (OR) 1.04, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.85 to 1.26, p = 0.72]. The sensitivity analyses produced similar results to the primary analysis. The CACE estimates of the treatment effect based on attending the CBS session and on attending the CBS session and receiving at least 50% of their messages per week for the first 12 weeks were similar to the intention to treat estimate (OR 1.05, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.31, p = 0.64, and 1.07, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.59, p = 0.74, respectively). The CACE estimate associated with the number of texts sent was OR 1.00 (95% CI 0.999 to 1.001, p = 0.93), which indicates that for every additional text message sent, there was no evidence of a decrease in likelihood of having a carious lesion. There was no significant interaction between treatment allocation and either number of carious teeth at baseline or pilot/main trial schools, but there was evidence of a qualitative interaction for FSM status, with a benefit of the intervention seen among FSM pupils (OR 0.69, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.08, p = 0.10) but not among non-FSM pupils (OR 1.17, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.46, p = 0.18). There was evidence of a statistically significant difference for twice-daily toothbrushing at 6 months (OR 1.30, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.63, p = 0.03) and borderline evidence of a difference in gingival index score between the two groups (geometric mean difference 0.92, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.00, p = 0.05) at 2.5 years. One non-serious adverse event was recorded during the trial, which was deemed possibly related and unexpected, for a pupil in the control group. No suspected serious pathologies were identified during dental assessments. Fifteen safeguarding issues arose during the course of the trial. All were dealt with according to the trial safeguarding procedure. Cost-effectiveness results Clinical results suggested that there was unlikely to be effects beyond 2.5 years, which was therefore set as the time horizon. Due to high rates of missing data, treatment costs were estimated from dental assessment data using multiple imputation. Text messages cost £32.53 per pupil on average, while mean dental costs over the 2.5-year follow-up were £20.73 and £21.02 for control and intervention groups, respectively. QALYs were similar in the control and intervention groups (2.196 and 2.193, respectively). Regression analysis estimated incremental costs and QALYs of the intervention, relative to the control group, to be £1.02 (95% CI −1.29 to 3.23) and −0.003 (95% CI −0.009 to 0.002), respectively, with a 7% chance that the intervention is cost-effective using a £20,000 per QALY gained threshold. The results were robust to the changes explored in the sensitivity analyses, except for an alternative approach to estimating QALYs using the CARIES-QC. While this only had a very small impact on incremental costs and QALYs, it was enough to generate an incremental QALY gain, which, in combination with a very small incremental cost, generates an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £79 per QALY gained and an associated probability of the intervention being cost-effective of 96%. The subgroup analyses suggest that there is no evidence of a difference in the probability of the intervention being cost-effective within schools in Scotland versus England/Wales (6% in both cases). A positive QALY gain is observed in those schools with higher levels of pupils eligible for FSM than schools with lower levels of FSM eligibility. This produces an ICER of £2254 per QALY gained and a probability of the intervention being cost-effective of 60%. We also observed a QALY gain for pilot schools which leads to the intervention having an ICER of £3049 per QALY gained (and an 84% chance of it being cost-effective). Process evaluation The process evaluation showed that the BRIGHT intervention was generally implemented as intended, although there were challenges establishing the dose delivered and received for both components and technical difficulties delivering the text messages. Overall, pupils, staff members and stakeholders felt the intervention was acceptable. Conclusions At the 2.5-year follow-up, there was no evidence of a difference between the control and intervention groups in the prevalence of caries extending to dentine (primary outcome) or including enamel and dentine lesions. The proportion of participants with caries into dentine was high (intervention group 34.4% at baseline and 44.7% at the 2.5-year follow-up, and control group 34.9% at baseline and 43.1% at follow-up). There was an indication of a positive effect on short-term toothbrushing behaviour at 6 months. The subgroup analysis of participants eligible for FSM suggests a significant, qualitative interaction effect whereby the intervention appeared to be beneficial in terms of caries prevalence within pupils eligible for FSM but not for those not eligible for FSM. The process evaluation found the intervention to be broadly acceptable with some technical issues of text message delivery. The primary economic analysis shows that the intervention is not likely to be cost-effective. Further research is needed to understand how to prevent dental caries in secondary-school pupils. Trial registration This trial is registered as ISRCTN12139369. Funding This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 15/166/08) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 52. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Background Older adults with multimorbidity experience impaired health-related quality of life and treatment burden. Yoga has the potential to improve several aspects of health and well-being. The British Wheel of Yoga’s Gentle Years Yoga© programme was developed specifically for older adults, including those with chronic conditions. A pilot trial demonstrated feasibility of using Gentle Years Yoga in this population, but there was limited evidence of its effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. Objective To determine the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the Gentle Years Yoga programme in addition to usual care versus usual care alone in older adults with multimorbidity. Design Pragmatic, multisite, individually randomised controlled trial with embedded economic and process evaluations. Setting Participants were recruited from 15 general practices in England and Wales from July 2019 with final follow-up in October 2022. Participants Community-dwelling adults aged 65 years and over with multimorbidity, defined as two or more chronic health conditions from a predefined list. Interventions All participants continued with any usual care provided by primary, secondary, community and social services. The intervention group was offered a 12-week programme of Gentle Years Yoga. Main outcome measures The primary outcome and end point were health-related quality of life measured using the EuroQol-5 Dimensions, five-level version utility index score over 12 months. Secondary outcomes were health-related quality of life, depression, anxiety, loneliness, incidence of falls, adverse events and healthcare resource use. Results The mean age of the 454 randomised participants was 73.5 years; 60.6% were female, and participants had a median of three chronic conditions. The primary analysis included 422 participants (intervention, n = 227 of 240, 94.6%; usual care, n = 195 of 214, 91.1%). There was no statistically or clinically significant difference in the EuroQol-5 Dimensions, five-level version utility index score over 12 months: the predicted mean score for the intervention group was 0.729 (95% confidence interval 0.712 to 0.747) and for usual care it was 0.710 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.691 to 0.729], with an adjusted mean difference of 0.020 favouring intervention (95% CI −0.006 to 0.045, p = 0.14). No statistically significant differences were observed in secondary outcomes, except for the pain items of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System-29. No serious, related adverse events were reported. The intervention cost £80.85 more per participant (95% CI £76.73 to £84.97) than usual care, generated an additional 0.0178 quality-adjusted life-years per participant (95% CI 0.0175 to 0.0180) and had a 79% probability of being cost-effective at the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained. The intervention was acceptable to participants, with seven courses delivered face to face and 12 online. Limitations Self-reported outcome data raise the potential for bias in an unblinded trial. The COVID-19 pandemic affected recruitment, follow-up and the mode of intervention delivery. Conclusions Although the Gentle Years Yoga programme was not associated with any statistically significant benefits in terms of health-related quality of life, mental health, loneliness or falls, the intervention was safe, acceptable to most participants and highly valued by some. The economic evaluation suggests that the intervention could be cost-effective. Future work Longer-term cost-effectiveness modelling and identifying subgroups of people who are most likely to benefit from this type of intervention. Trial registration This trial is registered as ISRCTN13567538. Funding This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 17/94/36) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 53. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information. Plain language summary It is common for older adults to have two or more long-term health conditions. These conditions affect quality of life differently, with some people feeling well and others needing healthcare support. The Gentle Years Yoga programme was developed to improve quality of life for older adults, including those with long-term health conditions. We wanted to see how well the programme worked and if it offered good value for money for the NHS. We tested whether offering a 12-week course of Gentle Years Yoga improved the quality of life and reduced anxiety, depression, loneliness and falls for people aged 65 years and over who had two or more long-term health conditions. We recruited 454 people through general practices across England and Wales, with 240 people selected at random to be invited to take part in the Gentle Years Yoga programme and the other 214 to continue with their usual care and not be offered Gentle Years Yoga. The average age of participants was 74 years, nearly two-thirds were female and the number of long-term health conditions participants had ranged from two to nine (average was three). They completed four questionnaires over a 12-month period. We also interviewed some of the participants and the yoga teachers to find out how the approach worked in practice. The yoga was delivered either face to face or online. We did not find any significant benefits in terms of quality of life, anxiety, depression, loneliness or falls. At interview, some yoga participants noted no or a modest impact on their health or lifestyle, while others described Gentle Years Yoga as transformative, having substantial impacts and improvements on their physical health and emotional well-being. Because running the yoga classes was relatively inexpensive and some insignificant benefits were seen, the Gentle Years Yoga programme may be good value for money. Scientific summary Background Multimorbidity, having two or more chronic health conditions, is a major challenge for older adults and increases healthcare utilisation and associated costs. Multimorbidity is associated with reduced health-related quality of life (HRQoL), impaired functional status, worse physical and mental health and premature death. In 2015, 54% of people aged 65 years and over in England had multimorbidity. There has been limited exploration of the effectiveness of interventions to improve outcomes for people with multimorbidity. There is some evidence to suggest that yoga may help to prevent and treat various physical and mental illnesses and improve HRQoL. The available data offer support for the beneficial effects of yoga in older adults and for several chronic conditions. However, robust evidence of clinical and cost effectiveness is limited, and little research has specifically focused on older adults with multimorbidity. The Gentle Years Yoga (GYY) programme was developed to cater specifically to the needs of older adults, including those with health conditions common to an older cohort such as osteoarthritis, hypertension and cognitive impairment. A pilot randomised trial of the GYY programme (n = 52 adults, mean age 75 years) demonstrated feasibility, with a potential for a clinically important benefit on health status [EuroQol-5 Dimensions, five-level version (EQ-5D-5L) utility index score] at 3 months after randomisation [mean difference 0.12, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.03 to 0.21]. Consequently, we conducted this larger trial, as if shown to be clinically and cost-effective, GYY could be widely implemented, leading to improved outcomes for this population. Objectives The primary objective was to establish if the offer of a 12-week GYY programme in addition to usual care is more effective compared with usual care alone in improving HRQoL (EQ-5D-5L utility index score) over 12 months in people aged 65 years or over with multimorbidity. Secondary objectives were to: explore the effect of the GYY programme on HRQoL, depression, anxiety, loneliness and incidence of falls explore the safety of the GYY programme in terms of the occurrence of adverse events assess the cost-effectiveness of the GYY programme undertake a qualitative process evaluation to explore the acceptability of the intervention and the experience of participants and teachers, explain the determinants of delivery and identify the optimal implementation strategies. Methods Design This was a multisite, two-arm, parallel-group, superiority, individually randomised controlled trial comparing an experimental strategy of offering a 12-week GYY programme against a control strategy of no offer of GYY in community-dwelling people aged 65 years or over who had multimorbidity. Both trial arms continued with any usual care provided by primary, secondary, community and social services. The study also included cost-effectiveness and qualitative process evaluations. Setting Participants were recruited from primary care general practices in the UK. General practices interested in taking part in the trial were identified with help from the NHS Clinical Research Networks and the Health and Care Research Wales Support and Delivery Centre. General practices were selected based on their proximity to yoga class venues and local transport routes. The yoga courses were delivered either face-to-face in a yoga studio, community hall or leisure centre or online via video conferencing during periods of social distancing restrictions. The trial’s yoga consultants identified yoga teachers who were eligible and potentially interested in taking part in the trial. Yoga teachers needed to have completed the British Wheel of Yoga (BWY) Qualification Level 4 Teaching GYY and have valid BWY membership and insurance. For online courses, teachers also needed to be proficient in remote teaching. Participant recruitment and consent Patients were eligible to join the study if they were aged 65 years or older, community-dwelling and had two or more of the predefined chronic health conditions derived from the NHS Quality and Outcomes Framework. Exclusion criteria were: inability to attend one of the GYY courses on offer; yoga practice in the previous 6 months; contraindications to yoga participation; severe mental health problem; learning disability; or being unable to provide consent and/or return the baseline questionnaire. For online classes, ineligibility also included no internet access; inability to use the internet; no suitable device; insufficient space at home; and/or no sturdy chair for use during the classes. Potential participants were identified by searching general practitioner (GP) electronic patient databases. Participating practices ran a custom-built search, based on predefined read codes, which identified patients with eligible health conditions. Potentially eligible patients were sent a recruitment pack including an information sheet and, if interested, were invited to sign and return a consent form. After the research team checked their suitability for the trial with their GP, eligible patients were asked to provide baseline data on sociodemographic measures, primary and secondary outcome measures and preferences/beliefs for the treatments on offer in the trial. Participants indicated on the consent form if they also wanted to be considered to take part in the process evaluation interviews. Intervention and comparison Gentle Years Yoga is designed for older adults, including those with chronic conditions. Based on standard Hatha Yoga, it incorporates physical postures and transitions as well as breathing, concentration and relaxation activities. The aims of GYY are to improve muscle strength, flexibility, balance, mobility and mental and social well-being. Chairs are used for seated exercise and support when standing. The yoga practices are modified so individuals with varying medical conditions and functional abilities can participate safely. Props are used to modify some of the postures and concentration activities. The physical challenge of each posture can be progressed throughout the course as participants become more able and confident. Participants randomised to the intervention were invited to take part in a free GYY course. Each course involved 12, 75-minute sessions of group-based yoga, usually delivered 1 week apart, either face to face or online. Each class included: ‘housekeeping’ activities (5 minutes); an introduction to the theme and practices of the class, basic breathing and focusing activities (5 minutes); an extended warmup/mobilisation and preparatory postures (30–35 minutes); focused postures and restorative activities (10–15 minutes); breathing exercises (5–10 minutes); and relaxation and concentration activities (5–10 minutes), followed by optional after-class social time (15–30 minutes). Throughout the trial, both trial arms continued with any usual care provided by primary care, secondary care, community and social services. Sample size We proposed to randomise 586 participants in a 1:1 ratio to be able to detect a difference of 0.06 in EQ-5D-5L utility index score, assuming a standard deviation (SD) of 0.20, with 90% power, a two-sided alpha of 0.05 and 20% attrition. In October 2021, an interim calculation of the correlation between baseline and 12-month EQ-5D-5L utility index score indicated we would be able to detect a clinically important difference with close to or greater than 90% power with 454 participants, since the primary analysis adjusted for baseline score, which affords gains in power. Randomisation Participants were randomised via a central, computer-based randomisation system designed and managed by York Trials Unit (YTU), University of York. Randomisation was stratified by site using varying block sizes and allocation ratios. Blinding of participants or the yoga teachers was not possible. Outcome measures Outcomes were self-reported by the participant and collected using questionnaires at baseline and 3, 6 and 12 months after randomisation. The primary outcome and end point was the EQ-5D-5L utility index score over the 12-month follow-up period. Utility index scores were calculated following current National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance. Secondary outcomes were: EQ-5D-5L utility index score at 3, 6 and 12 months after randomisation EQ-5D-5L visual analogue scale (VAS) score at 3, 6 and 12 months and overall HRQoL at 3, 6 and 12 months and overall using PROMIS-29 (v2.1) depression severity at 3, 6 and 12 months and overall using the Patient Health Questionnaire-8 (PHQ-8) anxiety severity at 3, 6 and 12 months and overall using the Generalised Anxiety Disorder-7 (GAD-7) loneliness at 3, 6 and 12 months and overall. Questions used to capture loneliness were taken from the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing (ELSA), based on the University of California, Los Angeles 3-item (UCLA-3) loneliness scale and a direct question about how often the respondent felt lonely the incidence of falls, adverse events and healthcare resource use over 12 months. Analysis All analyses were conducted in Stata version 17 (StataCorp LP, College Station, TX, USA) following the principles of intention-to-treat using two-sided statistical tests at the 5% significance level. The primary outcome was analysed using a linear mixed model, including data at all available follow-up time points, adjusting for baseline EQ-5D-5L utility index score, time point, trial arm and an arm-by-time interaction as fixed effects. Participant (to account for the repeated measures) and site were included as random effects. In sensitivity analyses, age, gender and adapted Bayliss (severity-adjusted count of health conditions) score were added as covariates to the primary analysis model, and the site was substituted for yoga teacher as a random effect. Complier-average causal effect (CACE) analyses, using a two-stage instrumental variable regression approach with randomised group as the instrumental variable, were implemented to assess the impact of receiving GYY on the primary treatment estimate. A subgroup analysis was conducted to assess for differential effects of the intervention based on mode of delivery (face to face or online). The secondary outcomes of EQ-5D VAS, GAD-7, PHQ-8, T-scores from each of the seven subscales of the PROMIS-29 and the physical and mental health component scores and the global item score, UCLA-3 score and ELSA single-item direct loneliness question were analysed using the same methods as for the primary outcome, with baseline EQ-5D-5L utility index score swapped as a covariate for baseline value of the outcome. The incidence of falls during the 12-month follow-up period was analysed using a mixed-effect negative binomial regression model, adjusting for the number of falls in the 3 months prior to baseline and site as a random effect. Adverse events are summarised descriptively. Economic analysis The economic analysis assessed the relative cost-effectiveness of the GYY programme in addition to continued access to usual care compared with usual care alone. Costs and health outcomes were evaluated from the perspective of the NHS and Personal Social Services using a within-trial economic analysis and a cost–consequence analysis, both over a 12-month time horizon; hence, discounting was not required. Health outcomes were assessed in terms of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) using EQ-5D-5L data, with costs collected for healthcare resource use, medications and the intervention. Findings were presented in terms of the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for the intervention versus usual care and net monetary benefit. The base-case analysis was undertaken on an intention-to-treat basis, with multiple imputation used to deal with missing data and sensitivity analyses conducted to explore uncertainty around the cost-effectiveness findings. Process evaluation The process evaluation was informed by qualitative interviews with trial participants, trial decliners, trial yoga teachers and stakeholders, as well as by observations of standardisation training sessions and yoga classes. Intervention fidelity was assessed by class observation and via interviews with teachers as part of the process evaluation. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and edited to ensure respondent anonymity. Data analysis was iterative throughout the trial and conducted according to standard procedures of qualitative analysis. Results Between July 2019 and August 2021, 13,070 invitation packs were sent to potentially eligible participants, of which 1297 responded. Of these, 454 (35.0%) participants were randomised: 240 to the intervention and 214 to usual care. The mean age of participants was 73.5 years (range 65–99); 60.6% were female, and participants had a median of three chronic conditions. Among the intervention group, the mean number of GYY sessions attended was 8.8 (SD 3.7, median 10, range 0–12). Two hundred and twenty-two (92.5%) participants attended at least one session, and fifty-three (22.1%) attended all twelve. Eighty per cent (n = 192) attended at least three of the first six sessions and at least three other sessions. One participant in the usual care group was invited to attend classes in error; they attended eight sessions, including five of the first six. The primary analysis included 422 participants with valid EQ-5D-5L data at baseline and at least one post-randomisation time point (intervention n = 227 of 240, 94.6%; usual care n = 195 of 214, 91.1%). There was no statistically or clinically significant difference in the EQ-5D-5L utility index score over 12 months: the predicted mean score for the intervention group was 0.729 (95% CI 0.712 to 0.747) and for usual care was 0.710 (95% CI 0.691 to 0.729), with an adjusted mean difference of 0.020 favouring intervention (95% CI −0.006 to 0.045; p = 0.14). The sensitivity analyses produced very similar results. The CACE analyses, which considered compliance as attending (1) ≥1 GYY session and (2) ≥6 including 3 of the first 6, produced slightly greater, but not clinically relevant, treatment estimates (0.025, 95% CI −0.002 to 0.052; p = 0.07; and 0.029, 95% CI −0.002 to 0.059; p = 0.06, respectively). There was no evidence of an interaction between trial arm and intended mode of delivery (interaction effect 0.007, 95% CI −0.042 to 0.057; p = 0.77). No statistically significant differences were observed in secondary outcomes, except in the T-score for the pain interference subscale of the PROMIS-29 at 3 months (−1.44, 95% CI −2.63 to −0.26; p = 0.02) and over the 12 months (−1.14, 95% CI −2.24 to −0.04; p = 0.04), and in the global (pain intensity) PROMIS-29 item at 12 months (−0.45, 95% CI −0.83 to −0.08; p = 0.02) and over the 12 months (−0.32, 95% CI −0.61 to −0.04; p = 0.03), favouring intervention. No serious, related adverse events were reported. Economic evaluation The base-case economic evaluation found that the intervention cost £80.85 more per participant (95% CI £76.73 to £84.97) than usual care, generated an additional 0.0178 QALYs per participant (95% CI 0.0175 to 0.0180) and had a 79% probability of being cost-effective at the willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000 per QALY gained. Process evaluation Participants found both face-to-face and online courses acceptable. Participants were highly motivated; most viewed their health as good and engaged well with the GYY classes over time. The majority viewed GYY as a form of gentle exercise with mindful breathing. Some participants noted no or only a modest impact of GYY on their health or lifestyle, including physical, psychological and self-management benefits, while others described GYY as transformative, having substantial impacts and improvements on their physical health and emotional well-being. Conclusions The offer of a 12-week GYY programme was not associated with any statistically significant benefits in terms of HRQoL, mental health, loneliness or falls in older adults with multimorbidity. However, the intervention was safe, acceptable to most participants and highly valued by some. The economic evaluation suggests that the intervention could be cost-effective. Trial registration This trial is registered as ISRCTN13567538. Funding This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 17/94/36) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 53. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Background The most common cause of preventable death after injury is haemorrhage. Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta is intended to provide earlier, temporary haemorrhage control, to facilitate transfer to an operating theatre or interventional radiology suite for definitive haemostasis. Objective To compare standard care plus resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta versus standard care in patients with exsanguinating haemorrhage in the emergency department. Design Pragmatic, multicentre, Bayesian, group-sequential, registry-enabled, open-label, parallel-group randomised controlled trial to determine the clinical and cost-effectiveness of standard care plus resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta, compared to standard care alone. Setting United Kingdom Major Trauma Centres. Participants Trauma patients aged 16 years or older with confirmed or suspected life-threatening torso haemorrhage deemed amenable to adjunctive treatment with resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta. Interventions Participants were randomly assigned 1 : 1 to: standard care, as expected in a major trauma centre standard care plus resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta. Main outcome measures Primary: Mortality at 90 days. Secondary: Mortality at 6 months, while in hospital, and within 24, 6 and 3 hours; need for haemorrhage control procedures, time to commencement of haemorrhage procedure, complications, length of stay (hospital and intensive care unit-free days), blood product use. Health economic: Expected United Kingdom National Health Service perspective costs, life-years and quality-adjusted life-years, modelled over a lifetime horizon. Data sources Case report forms, Trauma Audit and Research Network registry, NHS Digital (Hospital Episode Statistics and Office of National Statistics data). Results Ninety patients were enrolled: 46 were randomised to standard care plus resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta and 44 to standard care. Mortality at 90 days was higher in the standard care plus resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta group (54%) compared to the standard care group (42%). The odds ratio was 1.58 (95% credible interval 0.72 to 3.52). The posterior probability of an odds ratio > 1 (indicating increased odds of death with resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta) was 86.9%. The overall effect did not change when an enthusiastic prior was used or when the estimate was adjusted for baseline characteristics. For the secondary outcomes (3, 6 and 24 hours mortality), the posterior probability that standard care plus resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta was harmful was higher than for the primary outcome. Additional analyses to account for intercurrent events did not change the direction of the estimate for mortality at any time point. Death due to haemorrhage was more common in the standard care plus resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta group than in the standard care group. There were no serious adverse device effects. Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta is less costly (probability 99%), due to the competing mortality risk but also substantially less effective in terms of lifetime quality-adjusted life-years (probability 91%). Limitations The size of the study reflects the relative infrequency of exsanguinating traumatic haemorrhage in the United Kingdom. There were some baseline imbalances between groups, but adjusted analyses had little effect on the estimates. Conclusions This is the first randomised trial of the addition of resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta to standard care in the management of exsanguinating haemorrhage. All the analyses suggest that a strategy of standard care plus resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta is potentially harmful. Future work The role (if any) of resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta in the pre-hospital setting remains unclear. Further research to clarify its potential (or not) may be required. Trial registration This trial is registered as ISRCTN16184981. Funding This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 14/199/09) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 54. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information. Plain language summary Trauma (physical injury) is a major cause of death and disability. The most common cause of preventable death after injury is uncontrolled bleeding. Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta is a technique whereby a small balloon is inflated in the aorta (main blood vessel) which aims to limit blood loss until an operation can be done to stop the bleeding. In this study, which is the first randomised trial in the world of this technique, we investigated whether adding resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta to the standard care received in a major trauma centre reduced the risk of death in trauma patients who had life-threatening uncontrolled bleeding. The study took place in 16 major trauma centres in the United Kingdom. Ninety adult trauma patients with confirmed or suspected uncontrolled bleeding took part and were randomly divided into two groups: (1) those who received standard care and (2) those who received standard care plus resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta. We followed participants for 6 months using routinely collected data from the National Health Service and from the Trauma Audit Research Network registry. We also contacted surviving patients at 6 months to ask about their quality of life. In the standard care group, 42% of participants died within 90 days of their injury compared to 54% of participants in the standard care plus resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta group. Risk of death was also higher in the standard care plus resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta group at all other time points (3, 6 and 24 hours, in hospital and at 6 months). Overall, the study showed that the use of resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta in hospital increased the risk of death. Scientific summary Background Trauma is a major cause of death and disability. Trauma (physical injury) disproportionately affects the young, killing those who might otherwise have lived long and productive lives. The most common cause of preventable death after injury is haemorrhage. The addition of resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) to current standard care is intended to provide earlier, temporary haemorrhage control, to facilitate transfer to an operating theatre or interventional radiology suite, for definitive haemostasis. Objectives The UK-REBOA trial was a pragmatic, multicentre, Bayesian, open-label, group-sequential, parallel-group randomised controlled trial comparing standard care plus REBOA versus standard care in patients with exsanguinating haemorrhage in the emergency room. The study included an elicitation exercise, an embedded mixed-methods process evaluation and a health economic evaluation. The primary clinical outcome was 90-day mortality (defined as death within 90 days of injury, before or after discharge from hospital). Secondary clinical outcomes included 3-, 6- and 24-hour mortality, in-hospital mortality, 6-month mortality, length of stay (in hospital and intensive care unit), 24-hour blood product use, need for haemorrhage control procedures (operation or angioembolisation), time to commencement of haemorrhage control procedure, complications/safety data and functional outcome [measured using the extended Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS-E)] at discharge. Economic outcomes were 6-month (within trial) and lifetime (modelled) UK NHS perspective costs, life-years and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) [calculated using EuroQol Group’s 5-dimension health status 5-level questionnaire (EQ-5D-5L)], 6-month quality of life (measured using EQ-5D-5L). Methods Trauma patients were recruited in 16 UK major trauma centres. Trauma patients aged (or believed to be aged) 16 years or older, with confirmed or suspected life-threatening torso haemorrhage thought to be amenable to adjunctive treatment with REBOA were eligible. Women known (or thought to be) pregnant and those with injuries deemed unsurvivable were excluded. The trauma team leader assessed the patients for eligibility. Patients who were eligible for inclusion in the trial were incapacitated and unable to give consent at the time of eligibility assessment and randomisation. There was also not sufficient time to consult a surrogate decision-maker, or even an independent medical practitioner, for advice about including the patient. Enrolment therefore took place without prior consent following Research Ethics Committee approval for this approach. Consent for continuing participation (i.e. data collection) was sought by a member of the UK-REBOA trial team once patients were no longer in a critical condition (defined as being cared for in a ward area rather than an intensive care unit or high-dependency unit) or from a personal (or nominated professional) consultee. The trauma team leader enrolled the participant using a dedicated, secure website, available on a handheld device (smartphone, tablet) or desktop computer which is linked directly to the 24-hour randomisation system at the Centre for Healthcare Randomised Trials, based in the Health Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen. Patients were randomised into one of the two intervention arms, in a 1 : 1 allocation ratio, in randomly generated blocks of two or four. Standard care: Patients allocated to the control group received ‘standard care’, as expected in a specialist major trauma centre. Such treatment typically included intubation, blood transfusion including blood products in a 1 : 1 : 1 ratio, interventions such as tourniquet application, and early operative or endovascular haemorrhage control. Treatment could also have included open aortic occlusion of the thoracic or abdominal aorta. Standard care plus REBOA: Patients allocated to this arm of the trial additionally received the technique of endovascular aortic occlusion, for the purpose of resuscitation, as part of an overall treatment strategy. The addition of REBOA to current standard care was intended to provide earlier, temporary haemorrhage control, to facilitate transfer to an operating theatre or interventional radiology suite for definitive haemostasis. The trial sought to evaluate the technique of REBOA rather than a specific brand of device, and therefore permitted the use of any licensed occlusion balloon, and did not prescribe or mandate a particular product. The trial had an integrated training programme to ensure familiarity with the REBOA procedure. In patients who had been randomised to the standard care plus REBOA arm of the trial, clinicians could decide not to insert the balloon occlusion device if: the patient’s haemodynamic status improved (as a result of other resuscitative measures), if they were deemed to no longer have life-threatening torso haemorrhage requiring adjunctive treatment with REBOA; they deteriorated (to the point of imminent death); or there was technical difficulty in obtaining arterial access, and it was felt that operative control of haemorrhage could be obtained more quickly. The data collection strategy for the UK-REBOA trial was designed to minimise the burden on participants and clinicians, and for the avoidance of duplication. The randomisation system collected balloon inflation/deflation times. The trial drew on routinely collected data, primarily from the Trauma Audit and Research Network (TARN) registry which includes demographic, injury, treatment and outcome data (including the GOS-E and EQ-5D-5L). Mortality and hospital resource use data were also sought from NHS Digital. The main analysis was based on the intention-to-treat principle. There were two planned interim analyses of survival and a final analysis of all outcomes after follow-up was complete. Baseline and follow-up data were summarised using descriptive statistics and graphical summaries. Treatment effects are presented with 95% credible intervals for the primary and secondary outcomes. Elicitation exercise An elicitation exercise involving 20 subject matter experts (12 emergency medicine physicians, 3 pre-hospital care doctors, 4 surgeons and 1 intensivist) was undertaken to derive prior probability distributions to help contextualise the interpretation for the primary and secondary outcomes of the trial. Subject matter experts, on average, estimated in-hospital and 90-day mortality in this patient group, without the use of REBOA, to be in excess of 50%. Mortality at earlier time points (6 and 24 hours) was estimated to be closer to 25%. The elicited data, and the resulting prior probability distributions, indicate that the experts, on average, had a favourable opinion of REBOA, that is they expect the addition of REBOA to standard care to improve mortality at all time points. Clinical results Sixteen recruitment sites were opened in a staggered manner. Recruitment commenced in October 2017, was halted in March 2020 due to COVID-19, and restarted in July 2020. The second interim analysis (including 80 participants) triggered one of the pre-specified stopping rules, and recruitment closed in March 2022, by which time 90 participants had been recruited. Forty-four participants were randomised to standard care (2 of whom did receive REBOA) and 46 were randomised to standard care plus REBOA (19 of whom had the catheter inserted and balloon inserted and the remaining 27 progressed to different time points along this pathway). The groups were well-matched in terms of age, gender, comorbidities, mechanism of injury and injury severity. In the standard care arm, the median age was 39 years (interquartile range 30–56 years) and 77% were male. In the standard care plus REBOA arm, the median age was 46 years (interquartile range 33–62) and 61% were male. The median Injury Severity Score in both arms was 41 (interquartile range 29–50), with the majority classed as having very severe injury. Of the 46 patients allocated to standard care plus REBOA treatment, 25 (54%) died within 90 days. Of the 43 standard care patients for whom primary outcome data are available, 18 (42%) died within 90 days. Using the minimally informative prior, the odds of 90-day mortality were 1.58 for patients allocated to the standard care plus REBOA arm (95% credible interval 0.72 to 3.52). The posterior probability of an odds ratio > 1 (i.e. that REBOA was harmful) was 86.9%. The direction of the estimate did not change when an enthusiastic (the elicited) prior was used or when the estimate was adjusted for baseline characteristics. For the secondary outcomes (3-, 6- and 24-hour mortality), the posterior probability that REBOA was harmful was higher than for the primary outcome. Additional analyses to account for intercurrent events did not change the direction of the estimate for mortality at 3, 6 and 24 hours, at 90 days or 6 months, or in-hospital mortality. Death due to haemorrhage was more common in the standard care plus REBOA group than in the standard care group. The mean number of days spent in intensive care and in hospital were lower in the standard care plus REBOA group compared to the standard care group, partly because of the higher number of earlier deaths in the standard care plus REBOA arm. There were no serious adverse device effects. Health economics We costed individual components of resources and summed these to generate a total cost for the whole initial hospitalisation admission period. Total NHS resource use for the index hospitalisation was obtained from patient-level data in TARN and the key resource use variables for costing included time of arrival, time of emergency department departure, time of first operation, time of death/discharge, number and type of operative procedures and volume of blood transfusions that were required. Secondary care contacts and episodes of care that were commenced between the date of discharge from the index hospitalisation through 6 months post randomisation were sourced, where available, through linkage of patient records to the Hospital Episode Statistics database. All costs are reported from a UK NHS perspective in Great British pounds (GBP) (year 2020-1). Quality of life was measured using the EQ-5D-5L prior to patient’s discharge from their index hospitalisation and at 6 months post admission. EQ-5D-5L asks respondents to report any problems on a given day across five dimensions of mobility, self-care, usual activities, anxiety/depression and pain. The data were available from TARN and supplemented with data collected by the local trial teams. EQ-5D-5L data were cross-walked to the 3L version and valued using UK general population preference tariffs. Baseline utility was set equal to the unconscious state (−0.402) and utility following death was set to 0. QALYs were calculated using an area under the curve approach assuming linear extrapolation between time points. From the within-trial health economic analysis, participants in the standard care plus REBOA arm of the study incurred lower costs {index hospital admission: mean cost £57,384 [standard deviation (SD) £62,863]} compared to those in standard care [mean cost £116,064 (SD £128,957)]. Lower costs in the standard care plus REBOA arm of the study were mainly due to lower use of hospital resources (length of stay, etc.) due to the competing risk of death (i.e. a higher number of deaths in the REBOA plus standard care group). Similarly, life-years accrued and QALYs over 6 months post randomisation were also lower in standard care plus REBOA compared to standard care due to a greater proportion of trial participants dying, with mortality also occurring earlier in the follow-up period for the REBOA arm. The mean life-years gained in the standard care plus REBOA arm was 0.232 (SD 0.247) compared to 0.305 (SD 0.236) in the standard care arm. When modelled over a full lifetime horizon, standard care plus REBOA is less costly (probability 99%), due to the competing risk of mortality but is also substantially less effective in terms of QALYs accrued over a lifetime horizon (probability 91%). The findings are robust to a range of scenario analyses undertaken, with the probability of standard care being the optimal treatment strategy ranging from 66% to 81% at a threshold value of a QALY = £50,000. Process evaluation The process evaluation was conducted in two phases; both phases involved interviews with clinical and research staff based at recruitment sites. Phase 1 was designed to identify barriers during trial initial and set-up; Phase 2 focused on exploring barriers and facilitators of recruitment into the trial and intervention delivery. A behavioural framework was used in Phase 2 to direct analysis and generate solutions designed to enhance trial practices, which included regular online meetings between the principal investigators from each site, updates to training materials and delivery, and e-mail/Twitter feedback on recruitment activity. Conclusions This is the first randomised trial ever to be conducted examining the potential clinical effectiveness of REBOA for the management of exsanguinating haemorrhage. All the analyses conducted suggest with high probability that a strategy of standard care plus REBOA is harmful. Implications for health care: The continuing use of REBOA, at least in the UK in-hospital setting, should be re-evaluated. Implications for research: The role (if any) of REBOA in the pre-hospital setting remains unclear. Further research to clarify its potential (or not) may be required. Trial registration This trial is registered as ISRCTN16184981. Funding This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 14/199/09) and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 54. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Abstract Background Endometriosis affects 1 in 10 women, many of whom have surgery for persistent pain. Recurrence of symptoms following an operation is common. Although hormonal treatment can reduce this risk, there is uncertainty about the best option. Objectives To evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of long-acting progestogen therapy compared with the combined oral contraceptive pill in preventing recurrence of endometriosis-related pain and quality of life. Design A multicentre, open, randomised trial with parallel economic evaluation. The final design was informed by a pilot study, qualitative exploration of women’s lived experience of endometriosis and a pretrial economic model. Setting Thirty-four United Kingdom hospitals. Participants Women of reproductive age undergoing conservative surgery for endometriosis. Interventions Long-acting progestogen reversible contraceptive (either 150 mg depot medroxyprogesterone acetate or 52 mg levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system) or combined oral contraceptive pill (30 µg ethinylestradiol, 150 µg levonorgestrel). Main outcome measures The primary outcome was the pain domain of the Endometriosis Health Profile-30 questionnaire at 36 months post randomisation. The economic evaluation estimated the cost per quality-adjusted life-years gained. Results Four hundred and five women were randomised to receive either long-acting reversible contraceptive (N = 205) or combined oral contraceptive pill (N = 200). Pain scores improved in both groups (24 and 23 points on average) compared with preoperative values but there was no difference between the two (adjusted mean difference: −0.8, 95% confidence interval −5.7 to 4.2; p = 0.76). The long-acting reversible contraceptive group underwent fewer surgical procedures or second-line treatments compared with the combined oral contraceptive group (73 vs. 97; hazard ratio 0.67, 95% confidence interval 0.44 to 1.00). The mean adjusted quality-adjusted life-year difference between two arms was 0.043 (95% confidence interval −0.069 to 0.152) in favour of the combined oral contraceptive pill, although this cost an additional £533 (95% confidence interval 52 to 983) per woman. Limitations Limitations include the absence of a no-treatment group and the fact that many women changed treatments over the 3 years of follow-up. Use of telephone follow-up to collect primary outcome data in those who failed to return questionnaires resulted in missing data for secondary outcomes. The COVID pandemic may have affected rates of further surgical treatment. Conclusions At 36 months, women allocated to either intervention had comparable levels of pain, with both groups showing around a 40% improvement from presurgical levels. Although the combined oral contraceptive was cost-effective at a threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year, the difference between the two was marginal and lower rates of repeat surgery might make long-acting reversible contraceptives preferable to some women. Future work Future research needs to focus on evaluating newer hormonal preparations, a more holistic approach to symptom suppression and identification of biomarkers to diagnose endometriosis and its recurrence. Trial registration This trial is registered as ISRCTN97865475. https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN97865475. Funding This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 11/114/01) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 55. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information. The NIHR recognises that people have diverse gender identities, and in this report, the word ‘woman’ is used to describe patients or individuals whose sex assigned at birth was female, whether they identify as female, male or non-binary. Plain language summary What was the question? Endometriosis is a condition where cells similar to ones that line the womb are found elsewhere in the body. Endometriosis affects 1 in 10 women, many of whom have surgery for persistent pain. Unfortunately, symptoms often return and some women will need repeat operations. Hormonal contraceptives can prevent the return of endometriosis-related pain: either long-acting reversible contraceptives (injections or a coil, fitted inside the womb) or the combined oral contraceptive pill (often called ‘the pill’). We do not know which is the best option. The aim of this trial was to find out which of these two hormone treatments was more effective in terms of symptom relief, avoidance of further surgery and costs. What did we do? Four hundred and five women with endometriosis, who were not intending to get pregnant, participated in a clinical trial. Half of the participants took long-acting reversible contraceptives, and the other half took the pill for 3 years following endometriosis surgery. The choice of treatment was made at random by a computer to ensure a fair comparison, although those allocated to the long-acting contraceptive could choose between injections or the coil. Participants completed questionnaires about their symptoms and life quality at intervals up to 3 years. What did we find? Both treatments were equally good at reducing pain but more women using the pill had repeat operations. The pill was a little more costly overall but associated with a slightly higher quality of life. What does this mean? Both treatments are equally effective in reducing pain up to 3 years after surgery for endometriosis. The differences in costs are small and the choice of treatment should be based on personal preference. Scientific summary Background Endometriosis, which affects up to 1 in 10 women, is characterised by the proliferation of endometrial cells outside the uterus, usually within the pelvis. These endometriotic deposits undergo cyclical proliferation in response to ovarian oestrogen, resulting in internal bleeding, scarring and adhesion formation, which causes pain and has a serious impact on quality of life in affected women. Surgical removal or destruction of endometriotic tissue is currently the preferred treatment but the risk of recurrence is high. Recurrence can be controlled by post-surgical hormonal treatment to reduce circulating levels of oestrogen but there is uncertainty as to the clinical and cost-effectiveness of two commonly used modalities: long-acting reversible contraceptive (LARC) and the combined oral contraceptive pill (COCP). Progestogen-based LARCs used in the trial were the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) or depot medroxyprogesterone acetate injection (DMPA). Objectives To evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of LARCs compared with COCP in preventing recurrence of endometriosis-related pain and quality of life. Design A multicentre, open, randomised trial with parallel economic evaluation. The final design was informed by a pilot study, qualitative exploration of women’s lived experience of endometriosis and a pretrial economic model. Setting Thirty-four NHS hospitals within the UK. Participants Women of reproductive age undergoing laparoscopic surgery for pelvic pain due to endometriosis were eligible if they fulfilled the following criteria: Inclusion criteria: Aged 16–45 years. No immediate plans to conceive. Scheduled for laparoscopic conservative surgery, or diagnostic laparoscopy with concurrent surgery if endometriosis is found, for pelvic pain associated with endometriosis. Willing to be randomised to one long-acting progestogen (LNG-IUS or DMPA) and COCP. The following women were also eligible if they had recurrent pain and were to have conservative surgery for endometriosis: Had one or more previous diagnostic laparoscopies. Had previous laparoscopic conservative surgery for endometriosis, provided that this did not involve rectovaginal dissection or bowel resection. Used postoperative medical treatment, including the treatment options included in the trial. Previous use of treatment options included in the trial as contraceptives. Use of preoperative gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogues (GnRHa), provided that this was stopped at least 4 weeks prior to laparoscopy. Exclusion criteria: No endometriosis identified at diagnostic laparoscopy. Infertility. Any plans for further elective endometriosis surgery (for deep disease or endometrioma). Contraindications to the use of hormonal treatment with oestrogen or progestogens. Suspicion of malignancy. Interventions Four hundred and five women were randomised in a one-to-one ratio via secure internet facility to either LARCs or COCP. The LARC was either 150 mg DMPA or 52 mg LNG-IUS. The COCP formulation contained 30 µg ethinylestradiol and 150 µg levonorgestrel. The LARC (LNG-IUS or DMPA) was selected before randomisation by the patient if a preference was apparent (or alternatively allocated randomly if there was no opinion). Outcome measures Primary outcome Pain as evaluated by the pain domain of the Endometriosis Health Profile – 30-item (EHP-30) questionnaire at 36 months post randomisation. Secondary outcomes (evaluated at 6 months, 1, 2 and 3 years): The four core domains of the EHP-30 questionnaire (control and powerlessness; emotional well-being; social support; self-image). The six modular domains of the EHP-30 (work; relationships with family; sexual relationships; feelings about medical profession; feelings about treatment; feelings about infertility). Pelvic pain measured by visual analogue scale (VAS) during periods; during intercourse; at any time. Responses to the question ‘compared to 1 month ago, would you say your pelvic pain has “Got much better”, “Got a little better”, “Not changed much”, “Got worse”’. Fatigue, as measured by Fatigue Severity Scale (FSS) score. Menstrual regularity. Generic quality of life questionnaire [EuroQol-5 Dimensions, five-level version (EQ-5D-5L)], including index and thermometer scores. Capabilities, as a measure of well-being (ICEpop CAPability, ICECAP measure). Further therapeutic surgery or second-line treatment for endometriosis as a proxy for recurrence or ‘treatment failure’, defined as having undergone hysterectomy, surgery for endometriosis, laparoscopy or taking GnRHa treatment. Discontinuation rates of randomised treatment (time to first treatment change), with reasons for change. Serious adverse events. The economic evaluation estimated the cost per quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained. Sample size To detect an 8-point difference on the EHP-30 pain domain with 90% power (p = 0.05) and assuming the standard deviation (SD) to be 22 points required 160 participants per group, 320 in total. To account for any loss to follow-up (estimated to be 20%), this target was inflated to 400. Eight points is equivalent to 0.36 SD, which can be considered halfway between a small (0.2 SD) to moderate (0.5 SD) effect size. This size of sample would also give us good power (80%) to detect a 10-point difference in the two stratified analyses of LNG-IUS versus COCP and DMPA versus COCP provided that these subgroups had a roughly even split. Results A total of 405 women were allocated to receive either LARC (N = 205) or COCP (N = 200) following laparoscopic surgery for endometriosis. The two randomised groups were comparable in terms of age [29.6 years (6.7 years) vs. 29.3 years (6.6 years)]; body mass index [27.0 kg/m2 (10.6 kg/m2) vs. 26.3 kg/m2 (5.5 kg/m2)]; early-stage endometriosis: stages I and II (79% vs. 79%); complete surgical excision (92% vs. 90%); white ethnicity (91% vs. 92%) and previous hormonal treatment (27% vs. 23%). Pain scores improved in both groups (24 and 23 points on average) compared with preoperative values but there was no statistically significant difference between LARC and COCP at 3 years [adjusted mean difference: −0.8; 95% confidence interval (CI) −5.7 to 4.2; p = 0.76]. The choice of LARC (LNG-IUS or DMPA) did not alter these findings. Most of the other domains of the EHP-30 were improved in both groups at all time points compared with preoperative scores, with no consistent evidence of any difference between groups when estimates of uncertainty were considered. Women in the LARC group had fewer surgical procedures or second-line treatments compared with those taking COCP (73 vs. 97 events, occurring in 50 vs. 61 women due to repeat interventions), translating to a 33% reduction in time to treatment failure [hazard ratio (HR) 0.67, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.00]. Participants in the LARC group had a slightly higher mean EQ-5D-5L score at 36 months compared with those in the COCP arm (0.693 and 0.686, respectively). The mean adjusted imputed QALY difference between the two arms was 0.043 (95% CI −0.069 to 0.152) in favour of COCP, where participants in LARC group had a lower QALY value than those randomised to COCP (1.937 and 1.976, respectively). Despite this, the COCP group was estimated to be more expensive than the LARC group by £533 (95% CI 52 to 983) per woman over 36 months of follow-up. Limitations In the absence of a no-treatment arm, we were unable to demonstrate the effect of surgery alone on preventing recurrence of pain symptoms. While we are able to comment on the effectiveness of a strategy of postoperative prescription of LARC versus COCP, the true impact of these interventions is difficult to gauge as the prolonged duration of follow-up meant that many women had discontinued their allocated treatments. The predominance of white women in the recruited sample limits our ability to be confident about how our results might apply to women from other ethnic backgrounds. Use of telephone follow-up to collect primary outcome data in those who failed to return full questionnaires resulted in missing data for some of the secondary outcomes. While all patients were recruited prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, the number of women who required further surgery may be underestimated, given the negative impact of COVID-19 on waiting lists for elective surgery throughout the UK. It is possible that this may have led to an increase in the use of GnRHa treatment by women who were unable to access surgery for their symptoms. Conclusions At 36 months, women allocated to LARCs or COCP had comparable levels of pain, with both groups showing around 40% improvement from presurgical levels. Although COCP is likely to be considered more cost-effective at a threshold of £20,000 per QALY, the difference between the two is marginal. LARCs may be preferred by some women as they are associated with lower rates of surgery, particular hysterectomy and operations for recurrence of endometriosis. Future work Future research needs to focus on evaluating newer hormonal preparations, a more holistic approach to symptom suppression and identification of biomarkers to diagnose endometriosis and its recurrence. Active measures need to be adopted to improve the inclusivity of clinical research and ensure that the ethnic mix within participants mirror that of the general population. Trial registration This trial is registered as ISRCTN97865475. https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN97865475. Funding This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 11/114/01) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 55. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Background Young adults represent a third of the United Kingdom prison population and are at risk of poor health outcomes, including drug and alcohol misuse, self-harm and suicide. Court diversion interventions aim to reduce the negative consequences of criminal sanctions and address the root causes of offending. However, evidence of their effectiveness has not yet been established. The Gateway programme, issued as a conditional caution, aimed to improve the life chances of young adults committing low-level offences. Participants agreed not to reoffend during the 16-week caution and, following a needs assessment, received individual support from a Gateway navigator and attended two workshops encouraging analysis of own behaviour and its consequences. Objective To evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of Gateway in relation to health and well-being of participants compared to usual process (court summons or a different conditional caution). Design, setting and participants Pragmatic, multisite, parallel-group, superiority randomised controlled trial with two 6-month internal pilots and a target sample size of 334. Randomisation between Gateway and usual process was on a 1 : 1 basis. Four Hampshire Constabulary sites recruited 18- to 24-year-old residents of Hampshire and Isle of Wight who were questioned for an eligible low-level offence. Semistructured interviews were also held with a sample of Gateway programme participants, staff and police study recruiters. Main outcome measures Primary outcome was the Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing Scale score at 12 months. Secondary outcomes included health status, alcohol and drug use, recidivism and resource use. Results Recruitment commenced in October 2019 and the trial stopped in April 2021. A total of 191 participants were recruited, with 109 randomised to Gateway and 82 to usual process. Due to an initial overestimation of potentially eligible young people and low retention rates, recruitment targets were adjusted, and a range of mitigating measures introduced. Although recruitment broadly met study progression criteria [35/50 (70%) Pilot 1: 64/74 (86%) Pilot 2], retention was low throughout (overall: data collected at week 4 was 50%: at week 16 it was 50%: 1-year 37%). Low retention was multifactorial, with one of the main barriers being difficulties contacting participants. It was therefore not possible to complete the randomised controlled trial or the health economics analyses. Qualitative interviews held with 58 individuals yielded rare insights into the benefits and limitations of this type of intervention, as well as barriers and facilitators in relation to recruitment in this setting. Limitations Despite close collaboration with the police to address recruitment and consent issues, expansion of the inclusion criteria and recruitment area and introducing other measures, the researchers were unable to collect sufficient data within an acceptable timeframe. Conclusions The Gateway study was a unique endeavour to gather evidence for a potentially life-changing intervention for an underserved population. The experience gained indicates that randomised controlled trials of interventions, with a health-related outcome, are possible in this setting but point towards the need for conservative recruitment and retention estimates in this target population. Other study designs should be considered. The qualitative evaluation provided a range of valuable lessons for those seeking to design similar interventions or conduct research in similar settings. Study registration This study is registered as ISRCTN11888938. Funding This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Public Health Research programme (NIHR award ref: 16/122/20) and is published in full in Public Health Research; Vol. 12, No. 7. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information. Plain language summary Young adults who commit low-level offences often have many health and social needs, making them vulnerable to physical and mental health problems. The Gateway programme was a conditional caution developed to address the underlying causes of low-level offending in young people aged 18–24 years and hence improve their life chances. In Gateway, a mentor assessed the young person’s needs and supported them, signposting to healthcare, housing or other services as required. The young people also participated in two workshops, analysing the causes and consequences of their behaviour. To find out if Gateway improved health and reoffending rates, a group of those who received a Gateway conditional caution were compared with a group of those receiving a court summons or a different conditional caution. Of the 191 participants recruited to the study, 109 were randomised to Gateway and 82 to the usual process. However, the researchers had significant difficulties getting hold of the study participants on the phone and they were unable to collect enough information from them to be able to say whether Gateway worked. The researchers introduced various changes to overcome this, but in the end had to stop the study early. As part of the study, the researchers interviewed 28 Gateway programme participants, 17 Gateway project staff and 13 police officers and staff who had been recruiting into the study. From the interviews the study discovered the perceived benefits of Gateway, how programmes like this could be improved and which factors helped or got in the way of doing research in the police setting. The Gateway study aimed to provide evidence for a potentially life-changing intervention for vulnerable young adults. Although it proved impossible to complete the study, the lessons learnt from running it should help colleagues design similar programmes or plan research studies with similar populations or in similar settings. Scientific summary Background Young adults represent a third of the United Kingdom (UK) prison population and are at risk of poor health outcomes including drug and alcohol misuse, self-harm and suicide. Those aged between 18 and 24, who have been questioned as suspects in relation to a low-level offence, may need to attend court and, if convicted, face penalties such as imprisonment. However, other means aimed at preventing young adults from reoffending exist. Court diversion interventions aim to reduce the negative consequences of some types of criminal sanctions and focus resources on addressing the root causes of offending. Although diversions are widely used in the UK, evidence of their effectiveness in terms of health outcomes has not yet been established using robust research methods. Hampshire Constabulary (HC), working with local charities, developed the Gateway programme, an out-of-court disposal aimed at improving the life chances of young adults. Objectives The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the Gateway programme issued as a conditional caution (intervention) compared to usual process (court appearance or a different conditional caution). The study objectives were to: Examine the effectiveness of the Gateway intervention on: (1) health and well-being including alcohol and substance use, (2) access to and use of health and social services and (3) quality of life, among young adult offenders. Explore the views and experiences of victims. Assess the quantity and quality of the Gateway intervention as delivered in the study and the generalisability of the findings. Identify and measure relevant consequences, both cost and benefits, of the Gateway intervention compared with usual process. Examine the effectiveness of the Gateway intervention on recidivism. Methods Design The study undertook a pragmatic, superiority RCT with two 6-month internal pilot phases and qualitative evaluation: an economic evaluation was planned. Participants were randomised using a 1 : 1 allocation ratio to either the Gateway conditional caution (intervention) or disposal as usual to a court summons or a different conditional caution to Gateway (usual process). The qualitative evaluation aimed to capture the experiences and perceptions of the impact of the intervention on participants, the police, victims and those delivering the intervention. Participants, setting and recruitment Eligible participants were those aged 18–24 who had committed low-level offences and resided within Hampshire and Isle of Wight (IoW) area. Participants were recruited by Police investigators during processing for an offence. Potential participants were offered a chance by the police to receive the Gateway caution, and those interested were invited to take part in the study. Police officers obtained Stage 1 consent and carried out an eligibility check, after which those eligible were automatically randomised to receive either a Gateway caution or follow the usual process, such as court appearance or a different conditional caution. Qualitative interviews were undertaken with trial participants, police officers and those delivering the intervention. Sample size There is no widely accepted and established minimal clinically significant difference for the primary outcome, Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing Scale (WEMWBS). A change of three or more points is likely to be important to individuals. There is also variation in the standard deviation (SD) of the WEMWBS with estimates ranging from 6 to 10.8 with the pooled estimate of 10 across all studies. Assuming 90% power, 5% 2-sided statistical significance, mean difference of 4 points on WEMWBS and a SD of 10, 266 participants were required. Conservatively, assuming a 20% attrition rate, the study aimed to recruit and randomise 334 participants. Interventions The Gateway programme, issued as a conditional caution, required participants to undertake a health and social care needs assessment, attend workshops encouraging analysis of their behaviour and its consequences, and agree not to reoffend during the 16-week caution. Usual process was disposal to a court summons or an alternative conditional caution. Outcomes The primary outcome measure was the WEMWBS. Participants self-reported WEMWBS at 4-weeks, 16-weeks and 1-year post-randomisation. Secondary outcomes were health status [Short Form 12 questionnaire (SF-12)]; alcohol [Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT)] and drug [Adolescent Drug Involvement Scale (ADIS)] use; type and frequency of reoffending (police data); and health and social care resource use (self-reported). Statistical methods The original plan, pre-specified in version 1.0 of the SAP, was to carry out a repeated measures, mixed-effects linear regression model with the WEMWBS score at 4-weeks, 16-weeks and 1-year post-randomisation as the dependent variable, adjusting for treatment group, time, group by time interaction, total number of records management system incidents and police national computer convictions 1-year prerandomisation, age at randomisation, Index of Multiple Deprivation quintile at randomisation, pandemic time period and standard of usual process available as fixed effects. Recruiting site was to be adjusted for as a random effect. However, due to the study closing early because of issues with retaining participants, a descriptive analysis was undertaken with no formal hypothesis testing. All outcomes were summarised descriptively by a randomised treatment group. Qualitative evaluation A qualitative evaluation was conducted to assess the implementation of the Gateway programme, including any related issues and observed benefits to the clients. Focusing on implementation, mechanisms and context, the research questions were: How is Gateway being implemented? What are the barriers to the implementation and effects of the Gateway programme? What are the mechanisms through which the intervention brings about change? How do different delivery methods (face-to-face/virtual/telephone) influence the above questions? We conducted qualitative interviews and focus groups with a range of stakeholders across three time periods during the implementation of the Gateway programme. Economic evaluation A formal health economic analysis was not feasible. Health economic data are summarised descriptively with the trial data. Results Randomised controlled trial We recruited 191 participants; 109 were randomised to Gateway and 82 to usual process. Although recruitment rates were within acceptable limits, the number of participants providing data [94 (32%) at week 4; 95 (34%) at week 16; 43 (28%) at 1-year] was insufficient to undertake any formal hypothesis testing and the trial was closed early. The groups were generally well balanced in terms of characteristics and percentage providing data, but more of those providing valid data had a previous conviction than those who did not provide data. Similar percentages from each arm provided data with those attending interviews completing all sections. Telephone interviews were acceptable to those willing to share an active telephone number. Rates for those who were non-contactable were similar between the groups at all three time points. Eighty-one of the 101 allocated to Gateway complied with the intervention. Reasons for non-compliance were reoffending and non-attendance at the LINX workshops. Qualitative evaluation Across 3 time points, 69 in-depth interviews were conducted with: 28 young people, 25 Gateway staff, 13 police recruiters and 3 focus groups with navigators. The researchers were unable to pursue interviews with victims as there were few offences with a victim. Our findings showed that, following engagement with the Gateway programme, young people reported being better able to make decisions after engagement with the LINX workshops, while navigators played a significant role in enabling compliance and change among young people. The role of the navigator was akin to that of the mentor, providing practical support towards improved health including, for example, making and attending doctors’ appointments with clients, as well as offering a listening role. Young people felt that, for them, the wider determinants (or ‘areas’) addressed with navigators, such as access to employment or improved health, were of greater importance than a reduction in reoffending. There was a polarity of needs among young people, which meant that all stakeholders valued the ability to tailor and adapt the programme to individual client’s needs, also giving clients a sense of agency and control over their lives. The independence of the Gateway intervention team, from the police, was highly valued by young people. Factors related to communication were a concern for all, particular at the point of recruitment (by police) and between multiple delivery agencies. Discussion The problems encountered throughout this trial and the researchers’ endeavours to overcome these problems provide valuable insights for colleagues seeking to design similar interventions and/or conduct studies with vulnerable populations in the police setting. Co-production is essential for studies in the police setting. By working in close collaboration with HC, and their two project dedicated officers, the researchers were able to make pragmatic adjustments to the study design as issues arose. However, training an entire police force is fraught with difficulty even when supported by senior officers; competing interests precluded mandatory training for research purposes. The use of a two-stage consent process and a web-based eligibility and randomisation tool facilitate recruitment in the police setting, but frequent, regular need to use is required to maintain the study profile. Young people who have committed an offence are known to be a difficult group to engage with generally, let alone in research. The study identified and tested implementation of different approaches to overcome this problem. Switching to telephone interviews produced a positive response. Persistence and engagement paid off, but the study was unable to solve the problem of inactive mobile telephone numbers; an issue shared by the navigators and police. Independence of those delivering the intervention is important as perceived links with the police caused some disengagement. The collected data provide valuable information on attrition rates for health studies. Interestingly, allocation did not appear to make any difference to participation. The study’s qualitative evaluation highlighted the unmet health needs for this group of 18- to 24-year-olds, and the need to address the wider determinants of reoffending through individualised assessment. The Gateway programme was, however, developed for those with higher needs, which meant that flexibility and adaptability to suit individual needs was essential. It further highlighted the invaluable role of mentors in rehabilitative programmes such as Gateway. The study has demonstrated that it is possible to recruit and randomise to a RCT in the police setting. The data that the study presents should be used to inform the planning of future trials, including anticipated attrition rates, and setting conservative targets for retention as well as recruitment rates. Internal pilots should be long enough to confirm recruitment and data collection rates are achievable over an adequate follow-up period. Given the challenges encountered, alternative study designs should be considered for the evaluation of interventions with a health-related outcome. These include: cluster RCTs where processes at individual cluster sites could be simplified; post hoc cohort studies which may address non-response and attrition bias; and regression discontinuity design (RDD), a quasi-experimental approach at lower risk of bias which has the potential to equate to a RCT. Conclusions This ambitious RCT and qualitative study provides information about an out-of-court intervention aimed at improving life chances, health and well-being and recidivism in young adults. Challenges encountered in participation and retention in this setting and the ways in which these may be addressed are described and will be useful in planning future research. Study registration This study is registered as ISRCTN11888938. Funding This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Public Health Research programme (NIHR award ref: 16/122/20) and is published in full in Public Health Research; Vol. 12, No. 7. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Background Acne is common, can cause significant impact on quality of life and is a frequent reason for long-term antibiotic use. Spironolactone has been prescribed for acne in women for many years, but robust evidence is lacking. Objective To evaluate whether spironolactone is clinically effective and cost-effective in treating acne in women. Design Pragmatic, parallel, double-blind, randomised superiority trial. Setting Primary and secondary healthcare and community settings (community and social media advertising). Participants Women aged 18 years and older with facial acne persisting for at least 6 months, judged to potentially warrant oral antibiotic treatment. Interventions Participants were randomised 1 : 1, using an independent web-based procedure, to either 50 mg/day spironolactone or matched placebo until week 6, increasing to 100 mg/day spironolactone or matched placebo until week 24. Participants continued usual topical treatment. Main outcome measures Primary outcome was the adjusted mean difference in Acne-Specific Quality of Life symptom subscale score at 12 weeks. Secondary outcomes included Acne-Specific Quality of Life total and subscales; participant self-assessed improvement; Investigator’s Global Assessment; Participant’s Global Assessment; satisfaction; adverse effects and cost-effectiveness. Results Of 1267 women assessed for eligibility, 410 were randomised (201 intervention, 209 control), 342 in the primary analysis (176 intervention, 166 control). Mean age was 29.2 years (standard deviation 7.2) and 7.9% (28/356) were from non-white backgrounds. At baseline, Investigator’s Global Assessment classified acne as mild in 46%, moderate in 40% and severe in 13%. At baseline, 82.9% were using topical treatments. Over 95% of participants in both groups tolerated the treatment and increased their dose. Mean baseline Acne-Specific Quality of Life symptom subscale was 13.0 (standard deviation 4.7) across both groups. Mean scores at week 12 were 19.2 (standard deviation 6.1) for spironolactone and 17.8 (standard deviation 5.6) for placebo [difference favouring spironolactone 1.27 (95% confidence interval 0.07 to 2.46) adjusting for baseline variables]. Mean scores at week 24 were 21.2 (standard deviation 5.9) in spironolactone group and 17.4 (standard deviation 5.8) in placebo group [adjusted difference 3.77 (95% confidence interval 2.50 to 5.03) adjusted]. Secondary outcomes also favoured spironolactone at 12 weeks with greater differences at 24 weeks. Participants taking spironolactone were more likely than those taking placebo to report overall acne improvement at 12 weeks {72.2% vs. 67.9% [adjusted odds ratio 1.16 (95% confidence interval 0.70 to 1.91)]} and at 24 weeks {81.9% vs. 63.3% [adjusted odds ratio 2.72 (95% confidence interval 1.50 to 4.93)]}. Investigator’s Global Assessment was judged successful at week 12 for 31/201 (18.5%) taking spironolactone and 9/209 (5.6%) taking placebo [adjusted odds ratio 5.18 (95% confidence interval 2.18 to 12.28)]. Satisfaction with treatment improved in 70.6% of participants taking spironolactone compared with 43.1% taking placebo [adjusted odds ratio 3.12 (95% confidence interval 1.80 to 5.41)]. Adverse reactions were similar between groups, but headaches were reported more commonly on spironolactone (20.4% vs. 12.0%). No serious adverse reactions were reported. Taking account for missing data through multiple imputation gave an incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year of £27,879 (adjusted) compared to placebo or £2683 per quality-adjusted life-year compared to oral antibiotics. Conclusions Spironolactone resulted in better participant-reported and investigator-reported outcomes than placebo, with greater differences at week 24 than week 12. Trial registration This trial is registered as ISRCTN12892056 and EudraCT (2018-003630-33). Funding This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 16/13/02) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 56. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information. Plain language summary What was the question? Acne (or spots) is common and often persists into adulthood. Many people take long courses of antibiotic tablets, but concerns about antibiotic resistance mean alternatives are needed. Spironolactone is a medicine that is sometimes used for acne in women. However, we do not know whether it works. This trial aimed to answer this question. What did we do? We invited women aged over 18 who had acne on their face for at least 6 months to take part via their general practitioner surgery, hospital or advertising. Women were randomly assigned to two groups: one group was given spironolactone and the other group was given identical-looking placebo (‘dummy pill’) daily for 24 weeks. Women in both groups could continue using acne treatments applied to the skin (gels/creams/lotions). We asked participants to rate their acne using a questionnaire called Acne-Specific Quality of Life, asked whether they felt their skin had improved and asked skin specialists to assess their skin. What did we find? Four hundred and ten women took part, many of whom had had acne for a long time. Acne-Specific Quality of Life scores improved in both groups by 12 weeks but improved more in the spironolactone group at 12 and 24 weeks. When asked directly whether their skin had improved, 71% of participants in the spironolactone group said it had, compared with 43% on placebo. Skin specialists were also more likely to report that the acne had improved in the spironolactone group. Side effects were mild and similar in both groups but there were slightly more headaches on spironolactone (20% compared with 12%). Spironolactone is likely to represent value for money for the National Health Service, though this depends on a number of factors including what it is compared to. What does this mean? This trial suggests that spironolactone is a useful additional treatment for women with persistent acne. Scientific summary Background Acne vulgaris (hereon ‘acne’) is common, can cause significant psychosocial impact and risks permanent scarring. Topical treatments are first line, but people commonly receive long courses of oral antibiotics, raising concerns regarding antimicrobial resistance. Spironolactone, a potassium-sparing diuretic, is widely used for other conditions, such as hypertension. Spironolactone has anti-androgenic properties and is prescribed by dermatologists to treat acne in women, but robust evidence of effectiveness is lacking. Objective To evaluate whether spironolactone is clinically effective and cost-effective in treating persistent facial acne in women. Methods Design This was a pragmatic, multicentre, participant-blinded and clinician-blinded, placebo-controlled randomised trial. Participants were recruited through primary care (search and mail-out or opportunistic recruitment), secondary care (opportunistic recruitment) and advertising, including community and social media advertising. Trial participants were randomised to receive either 50 mg spironolactone or matched placebo one tablet daily for the first 6 weeks and then two tablets daily (total 100 mg spironolactone or matched placebo) at (or after) week 6, providing the participant was tolerating any side effects. Treatment continued for 24 weeks in both groups. Participants in both groups could continue to use usual topical treatments throughout the trial but adherence to topicals was not promoted beyond usual care. Between baseline and week 12, participants were asked not to change their topical treatments and not to take oral treatments for acne such as oral antibiotics, hormonal treatments or isotretinoin. After week 12, participants could change usual acne care, including oral treatments, if needed. In both groups, spironolactone or placebo was stopped at week 24, participants were informed of their treatment allocation and entered an unblinded follow-up period up to week 52. After week 24, participants could seek any treatment from their usual clinical team, including spironolactone. Baseline assessment was carried out in secondary care to ensure standardisation of clinical assessments, as the Investigator’s Global Assessment (IGA) for acne is not commonly used in primary care and was an important secondary outcome. The baseline appointment included pregnancy test, blood test (to exclude renal impairment or raised serum potassium), participant photo to aid recall about changes in acne, and contraceptive counselling. Baseline visits were conducted by research nurses and/or dermatologists. Participants were followed up face-to-face (or by video call or telephone due to the COVID-19 pandemic) in secondary care at week 6 and week 12, with primary outcome assessment at week 12, and longer-term follow-up by questionnaires at week 24 and up to week 52. Participants Participants eligible for inclusion were women aged 18 years or over: with facial acne vulgaris for at least 6 months acne of sufficient severity to warrant oral antibiotics, as judged by trial clinician; and with IGA ≥ 2 (mild or worse) women of childbearing potential at risk of pregnancy had to be willing to use their usual hormonal or barrier method of contraception for the first 6 months of the trial and for at least 4 weeks afterwards willing to be randomised sufficient English to self-complete acne-specific quality of life (Acne-QoL). Potential participants were excluded if: IGA acne grade was 0–1 (clear or almost clear) ever taken spironolactone taken oral isotretinoin within past 6 months taken oral antibiotics (lasting longer than 1 week) for acne within previous month started, stopped or changed hormonal contraception, co-cyprindiol or other hormonal treatment within past 3 months or planning to start, stop or change within the next 3 months intending to become pregnant in next 6 months spironolactone contraindicated: currently taking potassium-sparing diuretic, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor, angiotensin II receptor blocker or digoxin hereditary problems of galactose intolerance, lactase deficiency or glucose–galactose malabsorption (as the spironolactone and placebo tablets contain lactose) androgen-secreting adrenal or ovarian tumour Cushing syndrome congenital adrenal hyperplasia estimated glomerular filtration rate below 60 ml/minute/1.73 m2 serum potassium level above upper limit of reference range for laboratory. Outcomes Primary outcome was comparison of mean Acne-QoL symptom subscale scores between groups at week 12. Acne-QoL contains 19 questions with seven response categories, each referring to the past week, reported in four domains (acne symptoms, self-perception, role-social, role-emotional). Secondary outcomes included: Acne-QoL symptom subscale score at week 24 and up to week 52 Acne-QoL other subscales (self-perception, role-emotional and role-social) at week 12, week 24 and up to week 52 participant self-assessed overall improvement at week 12 recorded on six-point Likert scale (with baseline photo to aid recall) IGA change from baseline to week 12 Participant’s Global Assessment (PGA) change at week 12 and week 24 generic health-related quality of life at week 6, week 12, week 24 and up to week 52 [EuroQol-5 Dimensions, five-level version (EQ-5D-5L)] adverse reactions use of oral acne treatment during follow-up (e.g. antibiotics, isotretinoin) resource use. Sample size Sample size calculation was based on Acne-QoL symptom subscale scores as recommended by the questionnaire developer. Based on comparison Acne-QoL symptom subscale scores between groups at week 12, power 90%, alpha 0.05 and seeking a difference of 2 points between groups (effect size 0.35), a target sample size of 346 participants was initially estimated, or 434 participants allowing for 20% loss to follow-up. During the trial, the target sample size was revised to allow for correlation between baseline and follow-up measures, following discussion with trial monitoring committees and funder. Allowing for a correlation with baseline of 0.293 and a deflation factor of 1-ρ2, gave a revised target sample size of 398 participants (including allowing for 20% loss to follow-up). Randomisation and blinding Participants were randomised in a 1 : 1 ratio to either spironolactone or matched placebo using an independent web-based system (block sizes 2 and 4). Participants were stratified by recruitment centre and baseline acne severity (IGA

Background The BioImpedance Spectroscopy to maintain Renal Output randomised controlled trial investigated the effect of bioimpedance spectroscopy added to a standardised fluid management protocol on the risk of anuria and preservation of residual kidney function (primary trial outcomes) in incident haemodialysis patients. Despite the economic burden of kidney disease, the cost-effectiveness of using bioimpedance measurements to guide fluid management in haemodialysis is not known. Objectives To assess the cost-effectiveness of bioimpedance-guided fluid management against current fluid management without bioimpedance. Design Within-trial economic evaluation (cost–utility analysis) carried out alongside the open-label, multicentre BioImpedance Spectroscopy to maintain Renal Output randomised controlled trial. Setting Thirty-four United Kingdom outpatient haemodialysis centres, both main and satellite units, and their associated inpatient hospitals. Participants Four hundred and thirty-nine adult haemodialysis patients with > 500 ml urine/day or residual glomerular filtration rate > 3 ml/minute/1.73 m2. Intervention The study intervention was the incorporation of bioimpedance technology-derived information about body composition into the clinical assessment of fluid status in patients with residual kidney function undergoing haemodialysis. Bioimpedance measurements were used in conjunction with usual clinical judgement to set a target weight that would avoid excessive fluid depletion at the end of a dialysis session. Main outcome measures The primary outcome measure of the BioImpedance Spectroscopy to maintain Renal Output economic evaluation was incremental cost per additional quality-adjusted life-year gained over 24 months following randomisation. In the main (base-case) analysis, this was calculated from the perspective of the National Health Service and Personal Social Services. Sensitivity analyses explored the impact of different scenarios, sources of resource use data and value sets. Results The bioimpedance-guided fluid management group was associated with £382 lower average cost per patient (95% CI −£3319 to £2556) and 0.043 more quality-adjusted life-years (95% CI −0.019 to 0.105) compared with the current fluid management group, with neither values being statistically significant. The probability of bioimpedance-guided fluid management being cost-effective was 76% and 83% at commonly cited willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000 and £30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained, respectively. The results remained robust to a series of sensitivity analyses. Limitations The missing data level was high for some resource use categories collected through case report forms, due to COVID-19 disruptions and a significant dropout rate in the informing BioImpedance Spectroscopy to maintain Renal Output trial. Conclusions Compared with current fluid management, bioimpedance-guided fluid management produced a marginal reduction in costs and a small improvement in quality-adjusted life-years. Results from both the base-case and sensitivity analyses suggested that use of bioimpedance is likely to be cost-effective. Future work Future work exploring the association between primary outcomes and longer-term survival would be useful. Should an important link be established, and relevant evidence becomes available, it would be informative to determine whether and how this might affect longer-term costs and benefits associated with bioimpedance-guided fluid management. Funding details This article presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme as award number HTA 14/216/01 (NIHR136142). Plain language summary ‘Bioimpedance’ is a measure of how difficult it is for an electric current to pass through a biological object. Bioimpedance is used in devices that assess fluid status (over- or under-hydration) because it is very sensitive to the amount of water in tissue. Bioimpedance can be used in addition to clinical judgement when deciding how much water should be removed from someone with kidney failure during a dialysis treatment session. This is the first study to examine whether using this treatment represents a cost-effective use of National Health Service resources. We carried out an economic evaluation within a large randomised controlled trial in patients with kidney disease undergoing haemodialysis. We calculated the additional costs and quality-adjusted life-years (a measure that combines quality and quantity of life) using established methods. Over 2 years, our study showed that taking into account bioimpedance measurements about target weight resulted in slightly lower costs and marginally more quality-adjusted life-years, although there is uncertainty around these findings.

Background Insomnia is a prevalent and distressing sleep disorder. Multicomponent cognitive–behavioural therapy is the recommended first-line treatment, but access remains extremely limited, particularly in primary care where insomnia is managed. One principal component of cognitive–behavioural therapy is a behavioural treatment called sleep restriction therapy, which could potentially be delivered as a brief single-component intervention by generalists in primary care. Objectives The primary objective of the Health-professional Administered Brief Insomnia Therapy trial was to establish whether nurse-delivered sleep restriction therapy in primary care improves insomnia relative to sleep hygiene. Secondary objectives were to establish whether nurse-delivered sleep restriction therapy was cost-effective, and to undertake a process evaluation to understand intervention delivery, fidelity and acceptability. Design Pragmatic, multicentre, individually randomised, parallel-group, superiority trial with embedded process evaluation. Setting National Health Service general practice in three regions of England. Participants Adults aged ≥ 18 years with insomnia disorder were randomised using a validated web-based randomisation programme. Interventions Participants in the intervention group were offered a brief four-session nurse-delivered behavioural treatment involving two in-person sessions and two by phone. Participants were supported to follow a prescribed sleep schedule with the aim of restricting and standardising time in bed. Participants were also provided with a sleep hygiene leaflet. The control group received the same sleep hygiene leaflet by e-mail or post. There was no restriction on usual care. Main outcome measures Outcomes were assessed at 3, 6 and 12 months. Participants were included in the primary analysis if they contributed at least one post-randomisation outcome. The primary end point was self-reported insomnia severity with the Insomnia Severity Index at 6 months. Secondary outcomes were health-related and sleep-related quality of life, depressive symptoms, work productivity and activity impairment, self-reported and actigraphy-defined sleep, and hypnotic medication use. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated using the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year. For the process evaluation, semistructured interviews were carried out with participants, nurses and practice managers or general practitioners. Due to the nature of the intervention, both participants and nurses were aware of group allocation. Results We recruited 642 participants (n = 321 for sleep restriction therapy; n = 321 for sleep hygiene) between 29 August 2018 and 23 March 2020. Five hundred and eighty participants (90.3%) provided data at a minimum of one follow-up time point; 257 (80.1%) participants in the sleep restriction therapy arm and 291 (90.7%) participants in the sleep hygiene arm provided primary outcome data at 6 months. The estimated adjusted mean difference on the Insomnia Severity Index was −3.05 (95% confidence interval −3.83 to −2.28; p 65 years), sex, baseline insomnia severity [Insomnia Severity Index (ISI) score

Background Differences in the way autistic children experience the world can contribute to anxiety and stress. Carol Gray’s Social Stories™ are a highly personalised intervention to support children by providing social information about specific situations in an individual story. Objectives This randomised controlled trial aimed to establish whether Social Stories are clinically effective and cost-effective in improving social responsiveness and social and emotional health in children on the autism spectrum in schools. Design A multisite pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial comparing Social Stories with care as usual. Setting Eighty-seven schools (clusters) across Yorkshire and the Humber. Participants Two hundred and forty-nine children were randomised via a bespoke system hosted at York Trials Unit (129 Social Stories and 120 care as usual). Recruitment was completed in May 2021. Participants were children aged 4–11 years with a diagnosis of autism, alongside teachers, interventionists and caregivers. Recruitment was via schools, NHS trusts, support groups and local publicity. Intervention The intervention included training for educational professionals and caregivers covering psychoeducation and implementation of Social Stories. Stories were written around contextualised goals around the child’s need for social information. Interventionists read the Social Story™ with the child at least six times over 4 weeks during school. Main outcome measure The primary outcome was the Social Responsiveness Scale-2 completed by teachers at 6 months (the primary end point), which measures social awareness, cognition, communication and behaviour. Data were collected from caregivers and educational professionals at 6 weeks and 6 months through questionnaires. Blinding of participants was not possible. Results At 6 months, the estimated difference in expected teacher-reported Social Responsiveness Scale-2 T-score (the primary end point) was −1.61 (95% confidence interval −4.18 to 0.96, p = 0.220), slightly favouring the intervention group. The estimated differences for the parent-reported secondary outcomes at 6 months were small and generally favoured the control group except the measure of children’s quality-adjusted life-year (+ 0.001, 95% confidence interval −0.032 to 0.035) and parental stress (−1.49, 95% confidence interval −5.43 to 2.46, p = 0.460), which favoured the intervention group. Children in the intervention group met their individual goals more frequently than children who received usual care alone (0.97 confidence interval 0.21 to 1.73, p = 0.012). The intervention is likely to save small costs (−£191 per child, 95% confidence interval −767.7 to 337.7) and maintain a similar quality of life compared to usual care. The probability of Social Stories being a preferred option is 75% if the society is willing to pay £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained. Limitations include considerable disruptions during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. Conclusion Social Stories are used in schools and represent a low-cost intervention. There is no clinically evident impact on social responsiveness, anxiety and/or depression, parental stress or general health. Benefits were observed for specific behavioural goals as assessed by the teacher, and Social Stories may serve as a useful tool for facilitating dialogue between children and school staff to address specific behavioural challenges. Usage should be at the school’s discretion. Future work Given the uncertainty of the results in light of coronavirus disease 2019, further work to establish the impact of Social Stories is merited. Trial registration This trial is registered as ISRCTN11634810. Funding This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 16/111/91) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 39. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information. Plain language summary Autism affects the way children experience the world, and some children find social situations stressful. We wanted to know whether Social Stories™, developed by Carol Gray, helped children with their social skills and behaviour in school and whether they offered value for money. A randomised controlled trial design was used, which gave schools an equal chance of being asked to deliver Social Stories or to continue providing care as usual. Two hundred and forty-nine children from 87 schools took part and we trained school staff and parents to write and deliver Social Stories. We agreed with teachers and parents, what each child needed help with and wrote stories with this in mind. Trained staff read the Social Story with the child at least six times over 4 weeks. Follow-up information was collected from parents and school staff at the start of the study, after 6 weeks and 6 months. After 6 months, teachers completed a questionnaire called the Social Responsiveness Scale-2 which measures the child’s social skills. Using these measures, the results suggest that Social Stories do not lead to any significant changes in social skills, mental health, parent stress, general health or quality of life but children in schools allocated to Social Stories met their goal more frequently and incurred less costs than children who did not. Parents and educational professionals found the Social Stories intervention and training beneficial. Based on our findings, Social Stories do not appear to improve general social skills in primary-aged autistic children. Benefits were observed for specific goals, and school-based costs were reduced. Scientific summary Sections of this summary have been adapted from the trial protocol by Wright et al. (Wright B, Teige C, Watson J, Hodkinson R, Marshall D, Varley D, et al. Autism Spectrum Social Stories In Schools Trial 2 (ASSSIST2): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial analysing clinical and cost effectiveness of Social Stories™ in primary schools. BMC Psychol 2020;8:60. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-020-00427-z). This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article unless otherwise stated. Background Children on the autism spectrum experience a higher prevalence of mental health problems than typically developing children, including anxiety and low mood. Many children on the autism spectrum struggle to manage social anxiety and feelings of frustration, which can lead to behaviours that challenge them. The International Society for Autism Research (INSAR) has highlighted that more research evaluating early interventions for children on the autism spectrum is needed to ensure practitioners and policy-makers have robust data on intervention effectiveness and implementation to secure optimal outcomes for children. One intervention that attempts to alleviate social difficulties while not being intrusive, time-consuming or requiring extensive involvement from experts is Carol Gray’s Social Stories™. Social Stories are a highly personalised intervention aiming to share accurate, meaningful information about a particular goal or topic that the child needs help with in a positive and reassuring way. Social Stories can be written and delivered by both parents and professionals in a range of settings and represent a less time-consuming and intrusive intervention than alternatives. Previous studies examining the use of Social Stories have yielded mostly positive results but have largely been single-case studies with a lack of evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Despite the lack of rigorous evidence, numerous schools and families are already accessing Social Stories training and delivering the intervention with children and therefore a fully powered trial is timely. Schools have limited resources and limited access to specialist practitioner interventions, and therefore it is important that interventions such as Social Stories undergo robust evaluation. If they are found to be clinically effective and cost-effective, they can be delivered within schools on a day-to-day basis. Objectives The aim was to assess whether Social Stories alongside care as usual is clinically effective and cost-effective in improving child social impairment, reducing anxiety and improving social and emotional health in children on the autism spectrum in primary and special educational needs (SEN) schools when compared with care as usual alone. Primary objective The primary objective of the study was to establish whether Social Stories can improve social responsiveness in children on the autism spectrum in primary schools across Yorkshire and the Humber, when compared to children who have received care as usual only. Social responsiveness can be broadly defined as social awareness, social cognition, social communication, social motivation and mannerisms. Secondary objectives The secondary objectives of this trial were: to investigate whether Social Stories can reduce behaviours that challenge children on the autism spectrum in primary schools to investigate whether Social Stories can improve social and emotional health in children on the autism spectrum in primary schools to assess the cost effectiveness of Social Stories to examine the effects of Social Stories delivered in the classroom on general measures of health-related quality of life to examine whether Social Stories improve classroom attendance to assess sustainability of Social Stories in an educational setting across a 6-month period to examine any changes in parental stress to examine any associations between treatment preference and outcomes to examine how elements of session delivery (e.g. session frequency, length and any associated problems/adverse events) are associated with outcomes. Methods This trial was a multisite pragmatic cluster RCT comparing Social Stories and care as usual with a control group receiving care as usual alone. Care as usual is defined as the existing support routinely provided for a child with autism spectrum condition (ASC) from educational and health services such as specialist autism teacher teams, mental health teams or other associated professionals. The trial included an internal pilot, economic evaluation and a nested process evaluation. Setting The Social Stories intervention was primarily delivered within educational settings by educational professionals. Educational settings included both mainstream primary schools and SEN schools. Parents/caregivers were invited to receive Social Stories training and had the option of also delivering the intervention within the home. Participants Inclusion criteria The child was aged 4–11 years at the time of recruitment. The child attended a participating primary or SEN school within Yorkshire and the Humber. The child has a clinical diagnosis of ASC and daily challenging behaviour. Parents/guardians of the child were able to self-complete the English language outcome measures (with assistance if necessary). Exclusion criteria The school had used Social Stories for any pupil in the current or preceding school term. The child or interventionist teacher had taken part in the previous Social Stories feasibility study (ASSSIST-1). Schools that have taken part were not excluded. Where families were recruited but the child’s school was unwilling or unable to participate, families were notified by a telephone call and/or an e-mail. Where children were confirmed eligible and consent had been taken from all relevant parties, baseline questionnaires were distributed to parents/carers and educational professionals. A school was considered ‘ready to randomise’ once all consent forms and baseline questionnaires had been received by the trial team. Interventions Children in the intervention arm of the trial received the Social Stories intervention in addition to their care as usual. The Social Stories intervention was delivered by a trained educational professional (the interventionist) who was employed within each school allocated to the intervention arm. The interventionist varied between the schools [e.g. a teacher, teaching assistant (TA) or Special Educational Needs Coordinator (SENCO)] but was most typically a TA. A core aspect of the intervention was to first agree a goal around which the story would be set. The goal was typically a behavioural challenge the child was struggling with, for example, sharing with their teacher how they were feeling. This goal was agreed during a collaborative ‘goal-setting meeting’ attended by the child’s teacher, a parent/caregiver, a member of the research team and sometimes the child’s TA. Occasionally, the children themselves were able to feed into the goal-setting process if deemed appropriate. The intervention is designed to provide social information to the child, and so the goal sought to reflect this. In this way, many goals sought to reduce the child’s anxiety or frustration by equipping them with information or providing reassurance around appropriate behaviours within a given circumstance. We assessed goal attainment in terms of how frequently a child was able to implement the desired behaviours, for example, if a goal for a particular child was to use calming strategies when they were upset, we asked teachers to rate how often a child was able to do this. Interventionists were trained by members of the research team, who had received training via a cascade model overseen by child psychiatrist, Professor Barry Wright. The training of interventionists included some psychoeducation around the differences in children on the autism spectrum to facilitate understanding around what factors may be driving the observed behaviours associated with the behavioural goal. Training also provided key information on the design and implementation of Social Stories, with materials based on those developed in the preceding feasibility study with the support of Carol Gray and a Social Stories manual produced by Professor Barry Wright and a Clinical Psychologist with expertise in autism. During the training session, interventionists constructed a Social Story. Parents/guardians were also invited to attend these sessions. Following training, all Social Stories were assessed against a fidelity checklist by a member of the research team to ensure they conformed to the 10 established criteria central to Carol Gray’s Social Stories. They were then delivered to children in the intervention arm by the interventionist at least six times over a 4-week period. Sample size The primary outcome was that the teacher completed the Social Responsiveness Scale, Second Edition (SRS-2) T-score at 6 months. Within the pilot data, outcomes were measured at 6 and 16 weeks. The correlation between baseline and 6 weeks [r = 0.67, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.44 to 0.80] was lower than that at 16 weeks (r = 0.83, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.91) for the pilot data. To be conservative, the lower 95% confidence limit was chosen for the lowest correlation between baseline and follow-up that we observed within our pilot data (r = 0.44). Assuming a difference of 3 points, standard deviation (SD) = 7, 5% alpha, 90% power, average cluster size 1.35, intracluster correlation coefficient (ICC) = 0.34, correlation = 0.44 and 25% attrition, a total sample size of 278 was required. Support was gained from the trial steering committee and funder to stop recruitment with 249 children, which we modelled would still retain at least 80% power under a variety of different scenarios. Randomisation Randomisation was completed by unblinded members of the trial team via a bespoke trial management system. Stratified blocked randomisation was used to allocate school clusters, with randomly varying block sizes (4, 6 and 8), stratification by school type (SEN school or mainstream school) and the number of participating children within a school (≤ 5 or > 5 participating children). There were no stipulations regarding the minimum number of participants per school cluster (i.e. any school with ≥ 1 eligible/consented child with available baseline data was eligible for randomisation). Main outcome measure The primary outcome of the trial was the SRS-2 at 6 months post randomisation, as reported by the child’s teacher. This was also collected at 6 weeks post randomisation. The SRS-2 identifies the presence and severity of social difficulty within the autism spectrum condition and consists of 65 questions. For each question, the person completing the form picks a score from 1 to 4 (1 = not true, 2 = sometimes true, 3 = often true, 4 = almost always true) that best describes the child’s behaviour. A T-score is calculated based on the sex of the child and the person completing the form (teacher). Economic evaluation The primary analysis for the economic evaluation was a within-trial cost-utility analysis conducted from a societal perspective. Combining costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of cost per QALY was calculated and evaluated against the willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000–30,000 per QALY gained to assess the cost effectiveness of Social Stories compared to usual care. Regression models on an intention-to-treat basis were used to compare mean costs and QALYs. To take uncertainty into consideration, a non-parametric bootstrap resampling method was used to produce CIs around the cost and QALY differences and ICER. The following sensitivity analyses were conducted to test assumptions made in the primary analysis: a complete case analysis; a sensitivity analysis from the UK NHS and personal social services (PSS) perspective; and a sensitivity analysis from the joint perspectives of the NHS/PSS and education perspectives to representative a global public sector perspective. Process evaluation The process evaluation was cross-sectional and longitudinal, encompassing all aspects of the Social Stories intervention. The aim of the process evaluation was to assess the fidelity of the programme, consider the views of various stakeholders and identify barriers and facilitators to successful implementation. We aimed to achieve this through a combination of data collection techniques, including interviews, focus groups, questionnaires, surveys and diaries (session logs). Statistical analyses For the primary outcome, differences in expected SRS-2 scores were estimated using a linear mixed-effect covariance pattern model with both post-randomisation time points (6 weeks and 6 months) included as outcomes and fixed effects for treatment group, time point and their interaction. Further fixed effects were included for the following cluster and participant-level baseline covariates: school SEN status (binary, SEN/non-SEN), number of consented children attending school (binary, ≤ 5/> 5), baseline score (linear term), age at randomisation (linear term) and sex (binary, female/male). Dependence between participants within a cluster was modelled using school cluster-level random intercepts, and dependence between repeated measurements within participants was modelled using an unstructured correlation matrix for the residual errors. Similar models were used to analyse the secondary outcomes. Results The primary analysis included all 249 randomised children. After 6 months, a reduction of 1.61 points was found on the SRS-2 in children on the autism spectrum in the intervention group (95% CI −4.18 to 0.96; p = 0.220). No statistically significant differences were found in overall symptoms of anxiety and/or depression, parental stress or general health. Children in the intervention group met their individual goals more frequently than children who received usual care alone, and this difference was statistically significant (0.97, CI 0.21 to 1.73; p = 0.012). The primary analysis was conducted under the principles of intention to treat. Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) impacted upon delivery in schools and school routines, and only 62.8% of the sample is known to have received the intervention as per protocol. Sensitivity analyses suggested that there may be a dose effect with improved clinical effects in those receiving the intervention as per protocol compared to those with fewer sessions. The economic evaluation showed that, compared to usual care, Social Stories slightly decreased the service use costs over the 6-month period by £191 (95% CI −337.7 to 767.7) per child and maintained similar QALYs. If society is willing to pay £20,000 for extra QALY gained, then the probability of Social Stories being a dominant and preferred option is 75%. The results of both primary and sensitivity analyses, which considered costs derived from various perspectives, are consistent but limited to the given data within the short study time frame, number of missing data and disruption of COVID-19. The qualitative results suggest parents and educational professionals found the Social Stories training and intervention beneficial. Limitations include considerable disruptions during the COVID-19 pandemic. Conclusion We found no impact of Social Stories on autistic children’s overall social responsiveness skills. There was some evidence that Social Stories are well supported by parents and teachers, and it may be effective at addressing a wider set of individual goals and could reduce costs. Based on the evidence generated through this trial, we cannot recommend Social Stories for the purposes of improving social skills, anxiety and/or depression, parental stress, general health and quality of life in autistic children. The COVID-19 pandemic had a large impact on schools during this trial, and sensitivity analyses suggested that poor compliance may have reduced the effectiveness of the intervention and that effects were better in those receiving Social Stories as per protocol. We did not find any negative effects, and Social Stories are already frequently used in schools to support autistic children and represent a low-cost and potentially cost-saving intervention. Despite limited evident impact on global social skills, based on the data elicited through the process evaluation, it appears that Social Stories may serve as a useful tool for facilitating dialogue between children and school staff to better understand the needs of autistic children, and usage should be at the school’s discretion. Trial registration This trial was registered as ISRCTN11634810. Funding This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 16/111/91) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 39. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Background Barth syndrome is a rare, life-threatening X-linked recessive mitochondrial disorder of lipid metabolism primarily affecting males. Previous research suggests that bezafibrate may ameliorate cellular lipid abnormalities and reduce cardiac dysfunction in an animal model. Objectives Estimate the effect of bezafibrate on clinical, biochemical, and quality-of-life outcomes. Investigate whether within-participant clinical changes parallel in vitro changes in cardiolipin ratio/profile and mitochondrial morphology when each participant’s cells are cultured with bezafibrate. Investigate as for objective 2, culturing each participant’s cells with resveratrol. Describe the most feasible methods and standardised outcome measures to optimise the conduct of future trials and evaluations in Barth syndrome. Describe features of the research infrastructure which optimised recruitment, retention and communication with families and people with Barth syndrome. Describe the perceptions of participants and their families about the research and any important potential barriers to participation. Design Randomised, placebo-controlled, crossover trial of bezafibrate versus placebo. Setting NHS hospital providing UK-wide Barth Syndrome Service. Participants Males aged ≥ 6 years with a confirmed diagnosis of Barth syndrome with stable cardiac status, able to swallow tablets of bezafibrate/placebo. Exclusions were: hypersensitivity or allergy to bezafibrate or any component of bezafibrate; hepatic, liver or renal dysfunction; gallbladder disease; or recent deterioration in general health. Interventions Fifteen weeks of bezafibrate in one period and placebo in a second period, or vice versa (randomly allocated), with at least a 1-month washout between periods. Main outcome measures The primary outcome was peak VO2; secondary outcomes were cardiac function rest and exercise echocardiography and magnetic resonance imaging, cardiolipin ratio, quality of life, dynamic skeletal muscle P-magnetic resonance spectroscopy, mitochondrial studies and neutrophil counts, and adverse events. Outcomes were measured at baseline and the end of each period. Results Eleven males were studied; all attended all three assessments. There was no difference in peak VO2 between periods (0.66 ml/kg/min lower with bezafibrate than placebo, 95% confidence interval 2.34 to 1.03; p = 0.43). There was a trend towards a higher left ventricular ejection fraction with bezafibrate when measured by echocardiography but not magnetic resonance imaging, and better echocardiography-derived rest longitudinal and circumferential strain with bezafibrate. There was no difference in quality of life or cardiolipin ratio between periods. Skeletal muscle 31P magnetic resonance spectroscopy was performed cross-sectionally and showed a trend to higher Tau and lower Qmax indices in the bazafibrate group. Two participants had serious, expected adverse reactions when taking bezafibrate; otherwise, bezafibrate was well tolerated. Limitations The sample size was very small; the bezafibrate dose may have been too low or 15 weeks too short to observe an effect; measurements of mitochondrial content and membrane potential were highly variable; P-magnetic resonance spectroscopy was available only at the final assessment. Conclusions This study did not show significant improvement in the primary and secondary outcomes with bezafibrate treatment. Future work Elamipretide, studied in a small crossover trial in the USA, is another potential intervention which may be worth evaluating in an international study. Trial registration This trial is registered as ISRCTN58006579. Funding This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation (EME) programme (NIHR award ref: 12/205/56) and is published in full in Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation; Vol. 11, No. 13. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information. Plain language summary Barth syndrome is a rare genetic syndrome with mutations in the tafazzin gene causing long-term effects in several organ systems, leading to significant lifelong comorbidities and a reduced quality of life. Barth syndrome shows an X-linked inheritance, hence it is almost exclusively present in males. Tafazzin gene mutations impair overall cell energy metabolism, and affected individuals show compromise of the immune system with a high risk for life-threatening infections, as well as cardiac dysfunction and cardiomyopathy, muscle and general fatigue, and generally reduced mobility also leading to psychological challenges and dysfunction. Currently, specific medical therapies are limited to symptomatic treatment, and drug therapies targeting the causative mitochondrial energy disturbance are urgently needed. This randomised controlled trial explored the use of oral bezafibrate, a licensed drug that can improve cell energy metabolism. Eleven male patients received either bezafibrate or a placebo for 4 months. Exercise capacity by cardiopulmonary exercise testing on a cycle ergometer, as the primary outcome measurement, as well as cardiac function by echocardiography and magnetic resonance imaging, and cellular anatomy and function by in vitro assays and microscopy, were measured before and after this 4-month period. Bezafibrate did not significantly improve exercise capacity, cardiac function or the cellular metabolism, although several cardiac function parameters showed slight improvements with bezafibrate treatment. No significant adverse effects were recorded. The limitations of the trial were its low participant number and the relatively short duration of the drug treatment phase. The trial did prove that complex randomised controlled drug trials are feasible in people with rare diseases. Adherence was good, with parents reporting few difficulties with pill swallowing. The qualitative interviews also found that the study was acceptable to participants and the burden of participating not too onerous. We hope the research can provide a template for future studies. Scientific summary Introduction Barth syndrome is a very rare, life-threatening, X-linked recessive genetic disease almost exclusively affecting young males, caused by abnormal lipids in mitochondria. The tafazzin gene (TAZ) encodes tafazzin, a phospholipid acyltransferase. Tafazzin transfers unsaturated fatty acids with acyl chains from phospholipids to monolysocardiolipin (MLCL) and regulates remodelling and maturation of cardiolipin, a phospholipid located exclusively in the inner mitochondrial membrane. Mature tetralinoleoyl-cardiolipin (L4-CL) is essential in the mitochondrial membrane for maintaining mitochondrial membrane potential, structural integrity of electron transport chain complexes and mitochondrial cristae architecture. Cardiolipin is a major constituent of inner mitochondrial membranes, and the major effects of the aberrant gene are on muscular tissues. Cardiac and skeletal manifestations of Barth syndrome are thought to result from impaired formation of respiratory chain super-complexes. TAZ mutations decrease L4-CL and increase intermediate species of MLCL, resulting in a marked increase in the MLCL : L4-CL ratio, which provides a highly sensitive and specific biochemical test for Barth syndrome. Barth syndrome is characterised by many gene mutations and profound phenotypic variability between affected patients within families and those in different families. The disease carries many risks and problems for its sufferers, as well as major healthcare costs. Almost one-third (30%) of living UK patients have undergone cardiac transplantation. Several patients who have died due to cardiac rejection or post-transplant lymphoproliferative disease had previously undergone cardiac transplantation. Other patients who have died deteriorated too fast to undergo transplantation or died of complications while awaiting transplantation. Neutropenia is another life-threatening issue. Two-thirds of UK patients are treated with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor by subcutaneous injection. Managing neutropenia in this disease is challenging, since patients have highly variable neutrophil counts, which prevents administration of a consistent daily dose and requires repeated blood counts and physician oversight. Exercise intolerance, lethargy and fatigue are universal, interfering with daily life, schoolwork and play and often necessitating use of a wheelchair. Patients cannot perform strenuous or demanding jobs. Many have major feeding problems from infancy through to adult life; for example, requiring feeding via gastrostomies. There can be rapid deterioration during periods of stable health despite expert medical care. Ventricular arrhythmia (tachycardia or fibrillation) affects 10% of adolescents and can cause sudden cardiac death at any time. There are no specific treatments for Barth syndrome. There is no evidence that standard medications for cardiomyopathy ameliorate long-term poor outcomes. Treatment is multidisciplinary and currently limited to treating intercurrent bacterial infections, bone marrow support, physiotherapy, nutritional support, management of heart failure and arrhythmia, and consideration for heart transplantation. Experiments using lymphoblasts from patients with Barth syndrome show that either bezafibrate or resveratrol can partially normalise the deranged cardiolipin ratio. This may be important, since some patients with Barth syndrome who lack neutropenia and tend to have good exercise tolerance have cardiolipin ratios intermediate between those of typical patients and normal individuals. Bezafibrate also improved left ventricular function and showed other benefits at supraphysiological doses in a TAZ knockdown mouse model. This trial was motivated by the need for disease-specific therapy to prevent morbidity, mortality, psychological distress, and disruption of quality of life (QoL) in affected patients and their families. An effective therapy also has the potential to generate savings for the NHS. Bezafibrate is a lipid-lowering drug used in adults and children, with a good safety record in long-term use. These characteristics made it a candidate for investigation. Bezafibrate has been reported to significantly ameliorate a mitochondrial myopathy in adults and shown promising results in several animal/human cellular models of mitochondrial disease. Several of the laboratory assays and clinical investigations proposed in this study were also considered potentially important beyond the scope of this specific study, to assess associations between genotype and phenotype and for future evaluations of therapies in Barth syndrome. Objectives Estimate the effect on clinical, biochemical and QoL outcome measures of bezafibrate compared to placebo. Investigate whether clinical improvements parallel in vitro changes in cardiolipin ratio and mitochondrial morphology in each participant’s cells when cultured with bezafibrate. Investigate whether clinical improvements and culture findings with bezafibrate parallel in vitro changes in each participant’s cells when exposed to resveratrol in laboratory culture. Describe the most feasible methods and standardised outcome measures for future trials. Describe features of the research infrastructure which optimised recruitment, retention and communication with participants and families. Describe participants’ and their families’ perceptions of research and important potential barriers to participation. Methods Study design and participants CARDIOlipin MANipulation trial (CARDIOMAN) was a double-blind, placebo-controlled crossover randomised trial. Treatment was given in two 15-week periods with a minimum of 1 month’s washout period between these when no treatment was given. Twenty-six males and one female with the disease were alive in the UK when the trial was designed. Males aged ≥ 6 years in the UK diagnosed with Barth syndrome were eligible. Exclusion criteria were: hypersensitivity to bezafibrate or component of the investigational medicinal product (IMP), photoallergic or phototoxic reaction to fibrate, unstable cardiac condition, cardiac chamber shortening fraction < 25% or significant decrease in shortening fraction in the preceding year, atrial or ventricular arrhythmia not stabilised by treatment, inability to swallow the IMP, hepatic dysfunction, renal impairment (creatinine clearance < 90 ml/min), gallbladder disease, recent unspecified significant deterioration in general health, prisoners and adults lacking capacity to provide informed consent. Randomisation and masking Participants were randomised to receive either bezafibrate then placebo, or the reverse order. Allocations were generated in advance by the Bristol Trials Centre and provided to the trial pharmacy which dispensed the IMP. All investigators, members of the research team (apart from pharmacy) and participants remained blind to treatment allocation. Intervention and procedures The intervention IMP was bezafibrate taken orally as 100-mg tablets. Children aged 6–9 years started on 100 mg once daily for the first 4 weeks and, if well tolerated, increased to 100 mg twice daily for the remaining 11 weeks. Children aged 10–17 years started on 200 mg once daily for the first 4 weeks and, if well tolerated, increased to 200 mg twice daily for the remaining 11 weeks. Adults (≥ 18 years) took 200 mg twice daily throughout. The comparator IMP was placebo taken orally as visually identical tablets and manufactured to be as similar as possible in taste and smell to the intervention. The IMP was prescribed at the start of the first period and again at the end of the first period for the second period. Outcomes All in vivo outcomes except magnetic resonance spectroscopy (MRS) were assessed three times: at baseline and in the final week of each treatment phase. The primary outcome measure was peak oxygen consumption on bicycle ergometry [peak volume of oxygen (VO2)]. Secondary outcomes were: MLCL/L4-CL ratio and cardiolipin profile in blood cells; phosphocreatine (PCr)/adenosine 5’ triphosphate (ATP) ratio in cardiac muscle on 31P MRS; skeletal muscle oxidative function/on 31P MRS; QoL [age-appropriate Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory (PedsQLTM) questionnaires]; absolute neutrophil count; amino acid expression (serum arginine and cysteine); cardiac function [left and right ventricular function: left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF%), right ventricular ejection fraction (RVEF%); and 2-D longitudinal and circumferential strain at rest, peak exercise and after recovery]; mitochondrial size and number in lymphocytes; mitochondrial area in lymphocytes and as a proportion of cytoplasm area; mitochondrial function and cristae organisation in lymphocytes/neutrophils; arrhythmia profile from 12-lead electrocardiogram at rest and during exercise. Qualitative research methods explored participants’ and families’ experiences of the different interventions. Adverse events Serious adverse events (SAEs) and non-serious adverse events (AEs) were collected from participants from the time of consent until 1 month after the final period. Participants’ general practitioners were asked to inform the research team of suspected AEs. Participants were asked questions about SAEs/AEs at each research clinic visit and in monthly phone calls, including during the washout period. SAEs were reviewed by the Chief Investigator, who decided whether the SAE was related to bezafibrate. Statistical analysis A total of 20 males aged ≥ 6 years were potentially eligible. The sample size was dictated by the number of eligible boys willing to take part. The primary analysis estimated the difference in mean peak VO2 between placebo and bezafibrate periods (two-tailed 5% significance level). A sample size of 12 participants allowed the trial to detect a difference of 0.90 (within subject) standard deviations with 80% power. The statistical analysis plan (SAP) prespecified that all analyses should be conducted according to the intention-to-treat (ITT) principle. The ITT population comprised all participants and periods, according to the randomised allocations. The safety population comprised all randomised participants, according to the treatment received in each period, who received at least one dose of IMP. All statistical tests were two-sided and used a 5% significance level, except for interactions that used a 10% significance level. Treatment effects were estimated with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). No formal adjustment was made for multiple testing. The treatment effect for the primary outcome was analysed using mixed linear regression models, adjusting for period (fixed effect; exploring interactions where necessary) and participants (random effects). Model assumptions were tested using standard methods, and the carry-over effect was estimated by including treatment order. Treatment effects for continuously scaled secondary outcomes (prespecified in the SAP) were estimated and tested using the same methods. Results There was no statistically significant difference between bezafibrate and placebo in peak VO2, which was 0.66 ml/kg/min lower (95% CI −2.34 to 1.03; p = 0.43) with bezafibrate. There was a borderline statistically significant increase in LVEF% using echocardiography (3.72%, 95% CI −0.26% to 7.69%; p = 0.065) but no evidence of a difference when using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) (0.15%, 95% CI −3.21% to 3.51%; p = 0.926). There was also no difference for RVEF% between bezafibrate and placebo (0.32, 95% CI −2.32 to 2.96; p = 0.801). Longitudinal and circumferential strain at rest were better (lower) with bezafibrate than with placebo; differences were –1.67 (95% CI −3.11 to −0.22; p = 0.026) and −2.72 (95% CI −5.03 to −0.40; p = 0.024) respectively. There was no difference in diastolic ratio at rest between bezafibrate and placebo, and no differences in strain or diastolic ratio at peak exercise or after 2 minutes’ recovery. All participants had sinus rhythm at rest and during exercise for all three time points. Magnetic resonance spectroscopy was only performed after the second period for 10 participants. PCr/ATP ratio in cardiac muscle was not collected. Cross-sectionally (five vs. five participants), MRS appeared to increase Tau and reduce Qmax parameters with bezafibrate compared to placebo. Monolysocardiolipin/L4-CL ratio did not differ between bezafibrate and placebo but deteriorated in the second period (20% higher, 95% CI 3% to 40%; p = 0.024). Neutrophil count also showed no difference between bezafibrate and placebo but increased in the second period (2.26, 95% CI 0.08 to 4.45; p = 0.043). Plasma cysteine increased with bezafibrate (32% higher, 95% CI 8% to 62%; p = 0.001) but plasma arginine did not (25% higher, 95% CI −10% to 72%; p = 0.180). Mitochondrial outcomes on blood samples did not show marked differences and were not formally compared. Quality-of-life scores were transformed to a 0–100 scale (higher being better). Bezafibrate had no effect on core (−3.41, 95% CI −8.67 to 1.86; p = 0.192) or fatigue (1.71, 95% CI −6.28 to 9.71; p = 0.659) QoL scores. Emerging themes identified in qualitative interviews were classified as overarching, related to lived experience with Barth syndrome, and trial participation and conduct. Participants and families were pleased to take part in the trial, viewing participation as ‘giving back’ to the medical community. No participant withdrew, and the trial was not perceived to be too onerous for families. Participating in the research gave both individuals and families a sense of responsibility for their condition, partly driven by appreciation for the Barth Syndrome Service and staff expertise. Monolysocardiolipin/L4-CL ratio in vitro was estimated from samples of cells incubated with control, bezafibrate or resveratrol. Each drug reduced the MLCL/L4-CL ratio, largely by increasing intermediate cardiolipin species, and more so with resveratrol than with bezafibrate. Ratios were nevertheless profoundly abnormal in comparison to patients with intermediate Barth phenotypes. Discussion Main findings: study results There was no clinically important or statistically significant improvement in peak VO2 with bezafibrate compared to placebo. There were inconsistent findings for LVEF% by method of measurement; echocardiography showed a borderline improvement that cardiac MRI did not demonstrate. Longitudinal and circumferential strain measurements were better at rest with bezafibrate, but not at peak exercise. There were no clinically important or statistically significant improvements in core or fatigue QoL domains. Plasma cysteine was significantly improved with bezafibrate treatment. Plasma arginine also increased but not significantly. Neutrophil count was unaffected and there was no significant change in cardiolipin ratio in participants’ blood with bezafibrate. There were no significant period effects except for MLCL/L4-CL ratio and neutrophil count, both increased in the second period. In vitro incubation of Epstein–Barr virus-transformed patient lymphoblasts with either bezafibrate or resveratrol resulted in improved MLCL/L4-CL ratios, an effect that was more profound with resveratrol. Treatment with this drug also resulted in a more obvious increase in intermediate MLCL species. Strengths and limitations Strengths of the trial are: randomisation and placebo blinding; crossover design; excellent retention; completeness of the data, good adherence and IMP tolerance. There were several limitations. The sample size (outside our control) was very small, and interpretation of effects for many secondary outcomes was challenging. Longer treatment duration or a higher bezafibrate dose might have produced better outcomes. Bezafibrate may have induced adverse reactions in some participants, inadvertently causing unblinding. The group of participants randomised to receive bezafibrate first was older than the group randomised to the opposite order, which may explain period effects. The electron microscopic and mitochondrial assessments proved problematic and were not completed in vitro. Measurements of mitochondrial content and membrane potential were highly variable. Amino acid levels were not assayed after fasting. Echocardiography images during exercise testing were often suboptimal. Lessons for the future Magnetic resonance spectroscopy in children is still exploratory, and protocols need to be better validated, but it is considered very promising as a potential objective functional outcome. Cardiolipin profile is not a good outcome for research, although it is appropriate for diagnosis because the Barth cardiolipin profile is so extremely different from a normal profile. Electron microscopy measurements of mitochondria should not be considered as outcomes in future trials. Peak VO2 should be the preferred current primary outcome because it is resistant to bias compared to other functional outcomes. Conclusion The trial did not show a significant treatment effect for the primary outcome, peak VO2. Some secondary outcomes such as systolic function measured by echocardiography and amino acid levels provided some evidence of benefit. The trial provided insights about trial methods and conduct in the context of a very rare paediatric disease that should inform future studies. Trial registration This trial is registered as ISRCTN58006579. Funding This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation (EME) programme (NIHR award ref: 12/205/56) and is published in full in Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation; Vol. 11, No. 13. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Background Second trimester miscarriage and preterm birth is a significant global problem. Surgical cervical cerclage is performed to prevent pregnancy loss and preterm birth. It utilises either a monofilament or braided suture. It is hypothesised that a braided material becomes colonised with pathogenic bacteria that causes vaginal dysbiosis, infection and cerclage failure. Objectives The primary objective of the study was to examine the effectiveness of using a monofilament suture material as opposed to a braided suture material on pregnancy loss in women requiring a vaginal cervical cerclage. Design Superiority open randomised controlled trial. Setting Seventy-five maternity sites across the UK. Participants Women experiencing a singleton pregnancy requiring a cervical cerclage. Interventions Monofilament suture or braided suture. Main outcome measures The primary outcome was pregnancy loss (miscarriage and perinatal mortality, including any stillbirth or neonatal death in the first week of life). Secondary outcomes included the core outcome set for preterm birth. Methods Women were randomised on a 1 : 1 basis to monofilament or braided cerclage utilising a bespoke randomisation service with minimisation dependent on the site, indication for cerclage, intention to use progesterone and planned surgical technique. The inclusion criteria were three or more previous mid-trimester losses or preterm births, insertion of a cerclage in a previous pregnancy, a history of a mid-trimester loss or preterm birth with a shortened cervical length in the current pregnancy or in women who clinicians deemed at risk of preterm birth. The exclusion criteria were an emergency or rescue cerclage, age of < 18 years, being unable to give informed consent or the cerclage having to be placed abdominally. The original sample size was calculated based on a relative risk reduction of 41% from a pregnancy loss rate of 19% in the braided group to 11% in the monofilament group with 90% power and alpha at p = 0.05. The independent data monitoring committee noted a lower-than-anticipated pooled event rate within the trial and recommended an increase in sample size to 2050. The outcome data were collected using clinical record forms from the maternal and neonatal medical records and reported to Birmingham Clinical Trials Unit. Results A total of 2049 women were randomised, after withdrawals and loss to follow-up, data on 1005 women in the monofilament group and 993 women in the braided group were included. The baseline demographics between the groups were similar. There was no evidence of a difference in pregnancy loss rates between the monofilament and braided groups (80/1003 vs. 75/993; adjusted risk ratio: 1.05, 95% confidence interval: 0.79 to 1.40; adjusted risk difference: 0.002, 95% confidence interval: −0.02 to 0.03). Limitations The trial did not collect long-term paediatric outcomes. There were no safety concerns. Conclusions There was no evidence of a difference in pregnancy loss between a monofilament suture and a braided suture. Future work Long-term follow-up of neonates born within the C-STICH (cerclage suture type for an insufficient cervix and its effects on health outcomes) trial. Trial registration This trial is registered as ISRCTN15373349. Funding This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 13/04/107) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 40. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information. Plain language summary Cervical cerclage is an operation performed in pregnancy to prevent miscarriage and preterm birth. A cervical cerclage is sometimes recommended in women who have had babies born prematurely before or who have had previous cervical surgery. A cerclage operation involves a stitch being inserted around the neck of the womb (cervix) to keep it closed during pregnancy and to prevent it opening prematurely. When performing the operation, the doctor can use different types of threads made of different materials. The threads used to perform the operation are called sutures. One suture type is a single strand or monofilament thread, and the other is a multifilament braided thread with lots of thin strands woven together. Some evidence has suggested that using a monofilament suture thread prevented pregnancy loss by preventing infection. Therefore, we performed a randomised controlled trial of the use of monofilament suture thread versus braided suture thread, aiming to reduce pregnancy loss in women who were having a cerclage as part of their routine care. The women consented to take part in the study and were randomly allocated to their cerclage performed with either a monofilament or braided suture thread; there was no other change to their planned pregnancy care. What happened in their pregnancy was recorded from their medical records and analysed. A total of 2049 women agreed to take part in the study and consented to the analysis of their pregnancy and neonatal outcomes. Cerclage suture type for an insufficient cervix and its effects on health outcomes showed that there was no difference in pregnancy loss between the two suture threads. There was decreased maternal sepsis and decreased chorioamnionitis (which is an infection inside the womb during labour) in the women who received a monofilament suture, which needs further investigation. Although more women who had a cerclage using the monofilament thread needed a small operation and an anaesthetic, often between 36 and 37 weeks, to remove the monofilament suture prior to a vaginal birth, there were no differences in the outcomes for their babies. Scientific summary Background Preterm birth and second trimester miscarriage is a significant cause of worldwide neonatal morbidity and mortality. The aetiology is complex and multifactorial with a number of causes, including cervical insufficiency. One treatment to prevent preterm birth and second trimester miscarriage caused by cervical insufficiency is the placement of a vaginal cervical cerclage (CC). A CC is the placement of a purse string suture thread around the cervix aiming to prevent pregnancy loss and preterm birth. A CC can be performed with either a monofilament suture thread or a braided suture thread. The choice of thread used during surgical operations is dependent on the properties of the thread, with braided threads being multifilament in nature with lots of single strands woven together, which predisposes it to potentially becoming colonised with pathogenic bacteria. A prior feasibility study suggested a difference in pregnancy loss outcomes between monofilament and braided suture threads and the acceptability of either thread for clinicians and women. Therefore, a randomised controlled trial was designed to explore this discrepancy, aiming to reduce pregnancy loss for women at high risk of preterm birth. Objectives The primary objective of the study was to examine the effectiveness of using a monofilament suture material compared to a braided suture material on minimising the risk of pregnancy loss in women requiring a vaginal CC. The secondary objectives of the study included exploring the impact of suture material on maternal and neonatal outcomes. Design A pragmatic open, parallel, multicentre, randomised superiority trial of monofilament versus braided suture type during CC to prevent pregnancy loss. Setting The study was conducted in hospital settings across the UK (75 sites) between 2015 and 2022. Participants Women were eligible for the trial if they required a vaginal CC as part of their routine care within their current pregnancy and they fulfilled the following eligibility criteria: Inclusion Singleton pregnancy. Indication for CC for either: a history of three or more previous mid-term losses or premature births (≤ 28 weeks), OR insertion of cervical sutures in previous pregnancies, OR a history of mid-trimester loss or premature birth with a shortened (≤ 25 mm) cervix, OR women whom clinicians deemed to be at risk of preterm birth either because of their history or because of the results of an ultrasound scan. Exclusion Had taken part in C-STICH previously. Aged < 18 years old at the time of presentation. Requiring a rescue cerclage. Unwilling or unable to give informed consent. Those in whom a cerclage was to be placed by any route other than vaginally (e.g. via an abdominal route). Immediate need for insertion of a suture. Membranes that had ruptured or were surfacing. Interventions Women were randomised at a 1 : 1 ratio via a secure internet facility to have their CC performed using either a monofilament or braided suture thread. Minimisation was employed to balance for the following: indication for cerclage, planned bladder dissection, intention to commence patient on progesterone and recruiting site. Outcome measures The primary outcome measure was pregnancy loss (miscarriage and perinatal mortality). Key secondary outcome: Time from conception to pregnancy end (any reason). Maternal outcomes: Miscarriage and previable neonatal death (defined as delivery < 24 weeks). Stillbirth (defined as intrauterine death ≥ 24 weeks). Gestation at delivery (in live births ≥ 24 weeks). Gestational age of < 28/< 32/< 37 weeks at delivery (in live births ≥ 24 weeks). Time from conception to onset of spontaneous vaginal delivery (in live births ≥ 24 weeks). Sepsis (at any time in pregnancy and until 7 days postnatal). Preterm prelabour rupture of membranes (PPROM). Mode of initiation of labour (spontaneous or induced). Mode of delivery (vaginal, operative vaginal or caesarean). Cerclage placement complications (cervical laceration/bleeding from cervix/ruptured membranes/bladder injury). Cerclage removal complications (cervical tears/need for anaesthetic/difficult to remove). Other maternal complications: vaginal bleeding/steroid use/chorioamnionitis/maternal pyrexia of 38°C (intrapartum/postnatal)/admission to high dependency unit (HDU) or intensive therapy unit (ITU) (pre/post delivery). Neonatal outcomes: Early neonatal death (defined as a death within 7 days after delivery) (in live births ≥ 24 weeks). Late neonatal death (defined as a death beyond 7 days and before 28 days after delivery) (in live births ≥ 24 weeks). Birth-weight centile adjusted for gestational age and sex (in live births ≥ 24 weeks). Small for gestational age and sex (< 10th centile, in live births ≥ 24 weeks). Resuscitation at birth (in live births ≥ 24 weeks). Additional care required [special care baby unit (SCBU)/neonatal intensive care unit (NICU)/HDU/transitional care] and length of stay in additional care (in live births ≥ 24 weeks). Antibiotics within 72 hours (in live births ≥ 24 weeks). Sepsis (clinically diagnosed/proven) (in live births ≥ 24 weeks). Early neurodevelopmental morbidity (severe abnormality on cranial ultrasound scan) (in live births ≥ 24 weeks). Respiratory support and days on respiratory support (in live births ≥ 24 weeks). Supplementary oxygen requirements at 36 weeks post menstrual age (in live births ≥ 24 weeks). Necrotising enterocolitis (Bell’s stage 2 or 3) (in live births ≥ 24 weeks). Retinopathy of prematurity requiring laser treatment (in live births ≥ 24 weeks). Disabilities (live births ≥ 24 weeks). Congenital anomalies (in live births ≥ 24 weeks). The core outcome set for preterm birth was fully collected within the trial. Sample size The original sample size was based on a meta-analysis of non-randomised studies, where the pooled pregnancy loss rate in the monofilament group was 7% compared to 19% in the braided group. To allow for the observational nature of these data, we powered the study to detect a more plausible relative reduction of 41% (19% with braided sutures to 11.2% with monofilament sutures) with 90% power (alpha = 0.05). We planned to recruit 900 women. As a result of some uncertainty around the sample size parameters, the data monitoring committee reviewed the pooled event rate throughout the study. The sample size was subsequently increased to 2050 women to allow for a lower-than-anticipated event rate in order to maintain sufficient power to detect the same relative risk reduction. The primary analysis was by intention to treat. Results The trial opened for recruitment in August 2015 and completed recruitment in January 2021. A total of 2049 women were randomised into the trial and data for analysis was available for 1003 women in the monofilament group and 993 women in the braided group. The baseline demographic characteristics of women in the monofilament and braided group were similar. There was no evidence of a difference in pregnancy loss rates between the monofilament and braided groups [80/1003 vs. 75/993; adjusted risk ratio (RR) 1.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.79 to 1.40; adjusted risk difference 0.002, 95% CI −0.02 to 0.03]. There was no difference in conception to pregnancy end (median time to pregnancy end: 37.9 weeks vs. 38.0 weeks; adjusted hazard ratio 1.04, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.14). Regarding maternal outcomes there was a decrease in maternal sepsis in the monofilament group (4%) compared to the braided group (7%) (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.82) and a decreased risk of chorioamnionitis in the monofilament group (3%) compared to the braided group (6%) (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.71). There was no difference in any neonatal outcomes. CC removal complications showed an increase in the monofilament group (56% vs. 42%, RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.36), with increased difficulty of removal and an increased need for anaesthetic for removal being the most common complications. Conclusions There was no evidence of a difference between a monofilament suture thread and a braided suture for pregnancy outcomes. We can be relatively confident that using a monofilament suture is unlikely to have a substantial impact on pregnancy loss compared to a braided suture. The uncertainty around our comparative estimate for this outcome is at most 2% in favour of the monofilament in absolute terms. While this margin may not completely rule out missing a clinically important difference, we consider this scenario to be unlikely. Therefore, clinicians should consider the relative merits and disadvantages of the physical suture properties when selecting the material to perform a vaginal CC. The trial was robustly conducted with minimal limitations. An important strength of the study is the recognition early in the trial that the event rate was lower than anticipated and, therefore, the sample size was increased allowing the effectiveness of a monofilament versus braided suture thread to be fully evaluated. Trial registration This trial is registered as ISRCTN15373349. Funding This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 13/04/107) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 40. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award project information.

Background Atopic eczema is a common childhood skin problem linked with asthma, food allergy and allergic rhinitis that impairs quality of life. Objectives To determine whether advising parents to apply daily emollients in the first year can prevent eczema and/or other atopic diseases in high-risk children. Design A United Kingdom, multicentre, pragmatic, two-arm, parallel-group randomised controlled prevention trial with follow-up to 5 years. Setting Twelve secondary and four primary care centres. Participants Healthy infants (at least 37 weeks’ gestation) at high risk of developing eczema, screened and consented during the third trimester or post delivery. Interventions Infants were randomised (1 : 1) within 21 days of birth to apply emollient (Doublebase Gel®; Dermal Laboratories Ltd, Hitchin, UK or Diprobase Cream®) daily to the whole body (excluding scalp) for the first year, plus standard skin-care advice (emollient group) or standard skin-care advice only (control group). Families were not blinded to allocation. Main outcome measures Primary outcome was eczema diagnosis in the last year at age 2 years, as defined by the UK Working Party refinement of the Hanifin and Rajka diagnostic criteria, assessed by research nurses blinded to allocation. Secondary outcomes up to age 2 years included other eczema definitions, time to onset and severity of eczema, allergic rhinitis, wheezing, allergic sensitisation, food allergy, safety (skin infections and slippages) and cost-effectiveness. Results One thousand three hundred and ninety-four newborns were randomised between November 2014 and November 2016; 693 emollient and 701 control. Adherence in the emollient group was 88% (466/532), 82% (427/519) and 74% (375/506) at 3, 6 and 12 months. At 2 years, eczema was present in 139/598 (23%) in the emollient group and 150/612 (25%) in controls (adjusted relative risk 0.95, 95% confidence interval 0.78 to 1.16; p = 0.61 and adjusted risk difference −1.2%, 95% confidence interval −5.9% to 3.6%). Other eczema definitions supported the primary analysis. Food allergy (milk, egg, peanut) was present in 41/547 (7.5%) in the emollient group versus 29/568 (5.1%) in controls (adjusted relative risk 1.47, 95% confidence interval 0.93 to 2.33). Mean number of skin infections per child in the first year was 0.23 (standard deviation 0.68) in the emollient group versus 0.15 (standard deviation 0.46) in controls; adjusted incidence rate ratio 1.55, 95% confidence interval 1.15 to 2.09. The adjusted incremental cost per percentage decrease in risk of eczema at 2 years was £5337 (£7281 unadjusted). No difference between the groups in eczema or other atopic diseases was observed during follow-up to age 5 years via parental questionnaires. Limitations Two emollient types were used which could have had different effects. The median time for starting emollients was 11 days after birth. Some contamination occurred in the control group (< 20%). Participating families were unblinded and reported on some outcomes. Conclusions We found no evidence that daily emollient during the first year of life prevents eczema in high-risk children. Emollient use was associated with a higher risk of skin infections and a possible increase in food allergy. Emollient use is unlikely to be considered cost-effective in this context. Future research To pool similar studies in an individual patient data meta-analysis. Trial registration This trial is registered as ISRCTN21528841. Funding This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 12/67/12) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 29. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information. Plain language summary Eczema is a troublesome itchy skin condition affecting 1 in 5 children and 1 in 10 UK adults. There is no cure and affected children are more likely to develop food allergies. We wanted to see if we could prevent eczema by protecting the skin of babies at higher risk of developing eczema (with an immediate relative with eczema, asthma or hay fever) with moisturisers used to treat dry skin. Previous research suggested that protecting the skin barrier might also prevent food allergy. One thousand three hundred and ninety-four families took part in a study; half of them were asked to apply moisturiser every day to their newborn baby for the first year and half to look after their baby’s skin in the normal way. At the age of 2 years, we did not see any difference in how common eczema was between the two groups: 23% had eczema in the moisturiser group and 25% in the normal care group. It did not matter how we defined eczema – whether examined by a researcher or parent report. We did not find any differences in related conditions like asthma or hay fever either. We found that children using moisturisers had seen their doctor slightly more often for mild skin infections. There was a hint that food allergy might have been increased in the moisturiser group, but there was not enough data to be sure. We followed up the children to age 5 years, but we still did not find any benefits from using moisturisers in early life. Since this study, other similar research has been done using newer types of moisturisers, but their results are the same. This study shows that using daily moisturisers on healthy babies with a high risk of eczema does not prevent eczema. It is one less thing for busy families to worry about. Scientific summary Background Eczema, also known as atopic eczema (AE) or atopic dermatitis, is a common inflammatory skin disease that typically starts in early life. Eczema affects around 20% of children and 10% of adults in developed countries. Although most cases are mild, moderate to severe disease can have a major impact on the quality of life of an affected child and their family. The main symptom of this systemic inflammatory disease is itching which leads to scratching, bleeding, secondary infection as well as sleep loss and the social stigma of a visible skin disease. Genetic factors such as mutations in the gene encoding filaggrin (FLG) – a protein that is important for maintaining skin barrier function – have been shown to be important in increasing eczema risk, severity and persistence. Epidemiological studies showing that eczema is more common in smaller families, migrant populations and in higher socioeconomic status also suggest that the environment is critically important in determining disease expression. Eczema is closely related to other ‘atopic’ conditions including asthma, hay fever and food allergy. Some evidence suggests that the impaired skin barrier caused by eczema in early life is an important route for the development of food allergy as a result of sensitisation through the skin. Treatment of eczema depends on severity: mild eczema can be treated with emollients (moisturisers) and weak topical corticosteroids. Moderate eczema usually needs potent topical corticosteroids and other anti-inflammatory treatments such as topical tacrolimus, whereas severe eczema is treated by ultraviolet light or systemic treatments including ciclosporin, methotrexate, dupilumab and an emerging pipeline of new biologics. While good progress has been made with treatment, prevention of eczema remains challenging. Strategies include avoidance of allergens (foods and house dust mite) during pregnancy and early life, exclusive breastfeeding, or different timing of introducing solids, but these have not shown convincing preventative effects. Probiotics and prebiotics have shown some benefit, but the exact strain or combination and timing of intervention remain unclear. One previously unexplored eczema prevention strategy is enhancement of the skin barrier in early life. The hypothesis is that enhancing the skin barrier could interrupt an early cascade of inflammatory events that can lead to chronic auto-immune eczema and potentially prevent skin sensitisation to common allergens that can lead to food allergy. Two small pilot studies suggested that protecting the skin of babies who had a first-degree relative with eczema, asthma or hay fever with emollients could prevent the development of eczema in the first year of life. We wanted to see whether daily emollient application for the first year of life in such high-risk babies can prevent eczema and other allergic diseases in a sustained and convincing way by means of a definitive pragmatic randomised controlled trial. Objectives The primary objective was to determine whether advising parents to apply emollient daily for the first year of life could prevent eczema at 2 years of age when compared with standard skin-care advice alone in children at high risk of developing eczema. Secondary objectives included evaluating whether prophylactic use of emollients would delay the onset of eczema or reduce eczema severity when compared to standard skin-care advice, whether any preventive effect at age 2 years was sustained up to age 5 years and to determine the safety and cost-effectiveness of such a strategy. We also sought to determine whether emollients could prevent the development of other associated allergic conditions including food allergy, asthma and hay fever up to the age of 5 years. Methods We conducted a multicentre, pragmatic, two-arm parallel group randomised controlled prevention trial which recruited participants from 12 hospitals and 4 general practices in the UK. Participants were infants of at least 37 weeks’ gestation at high risk of developing eczema defined by having at least one first-degree relative with a parental report of doctor-diagnosed eczema, allergic rhinitis or asthma. Mothers had to be 16 years or older, and the consenting adult had to understand English. We excluded babies with a severe widespread skin condition that would make eczema assessment difficult; a serious health issue that would make it difficult for the family to take part in the trial; or a condition that would make the use of emollient inadvisable. Informed consent was obtained from mothers during pregnancy, or mother, father or guardian post delivery. The intervention group was advised to use one of two study emollients (Doublebase Gel® or Diprobase Cream®) at least once daily to the whole body (excluding the scalp) until the child reached 1 year, plus standard skin-care advice (designated the ‘emollient group’). The control group was advised to use standard skin-care advice only. Standard skin-care guidance, in booklet and video format at the time of randomisation, provided advice to use mild cleansers and shampoos specifically formulated for infants, and to avoid soap, bubble bath and baby wipes, and was given to both groups. Intervention adherence was measured at 3, 6 and 12 months and defined as satisfactory if emollients were applied at least three to four times per week to most of the child’s body. A similar definition was used to define contamination in the control group. The primary outcome was presence of eczema in the last year when the baby was aged 2 years, defined as meeting the United Kingdom Working Party (UKWP) Diagnostic Criteria for AE for children under 4 years. Secondary outcomes encompassed other ways of defining eczema including any parental report of a clinical diagnosis of eczema up to 2 years, parent completion of UKWP criteria at 1 and 2 years, and presence of visible eczema at 2 years recorded by a nurse masked to treatment allocation. Other eczema secondary outcomes included time to onset of eczema (based on first parent report of clinician diagnosis and first topical corticosteroid or immunosuppressant prescription); severity of eczema measured by trained nurses using the Eczema Area and Severity Index at 2 years and parent-reported Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure at 1 and 2 years. Other secondary outcomes included parent-reported wheezing and allergic rhinitis between 1 and 2 years; allergic sensitisation (masked skin prick tests) to milk, egg, peanut, cat dander, grass pollen or dust mite at 2 years; parent-reported food allergy; parental report of clinical diagnosis of food allergy at 1 and 2 years; and allergy to milk, egg or peanut at 2 years confirmed either by oral food challenge or for cases in which no oral food challenge was done, an expert panel of experienced paediatric allergists masked to treatment allocation. The panel decisions were made using an algorithm, validated using data from a previous trial, which incorporates all available data including skin prick test results, previous reaction history, frequency of food ingestion and allergy tests done outside the trial. The main economic outcome measure was incremental cost per percentage decrease in risk of eczema at 2 years in a cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA). Cost–utility analyses using quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) derived from the proxy Child Health Utility instrument-9 domains (CHU-9D) for the child was also conducted as a secondary analysis. Safety outcomes were parent-reported skin infections (parents were asked what the doctor called the infection) and emollient-related infant slippages during the intervention period (year 1). Tertiary outcomes at 3, 4 and 5 years were to evaluate if emollients in early life could also prevent later-onset allergic diseases including asthma, hay fever and food allergy, and to see whether any early possible benefits of eczema prevention were sustained. Outcomes included parental-reported presence of eczema; severity of eczema; wheezing; allergic rhinitis; food allergy symptoms and clinical diagnoses of asthma, allergic rhinitis and food allergy. Randomisation (1 : 1) within 21 days of birth was performed using computer-generated pseudo-random code with permuted blocks of randomly varying size and concealed from the trial investigators via a web-based randomisation system. Randomisation was stratified by recruiting centre and number of first-degree relatives with eczema, asthma or hay fever (1, 2 or > 2). Research nurses conducting outcome assessments were masked to participant treatment allocation. Families were not masked to the allocated interventions and were reminded not to reveal allocation to research nurses. The trial was powered to detect a relative reduction of 30% in the primary outcome at the 5% significance level (two-sided) with 90% power assuming that 30% of children in the control group would have eczema and 20% attrition, resulting in a sample size of 1282. The target sample size was reached faster than anticipated at which point the Trial Steering Committee permitted that all pregnant mothers who had already consented to the trial could be randomised on the birth of the baby giving a maximum possible sample size of 1400. We analysed participants as randomised regardless of adherence with allocation using available data (i.e. without imputation for missing data) with sensitivity analyses for missing data. The adjusted relative risk (RR) and risk difference for the primary outcome were estimated using generalised estimating equations with the binomial family and log/identity link respectively, with an exchangeable correlation matrix to account for randomisation stratification by centre and number of immediate family members with atopic disease (one, two, or more than two) included as a covariate. A number of planned subgroup analyses for the primary outcome were conducted including according to FLG genotype, to test the hypothesis that FLG null genotype affects response to intensive emollient use from birth. Results One thousand three hundred and ninety-four newborns were randomised between 19 November 2014 and 18 November 2016; 693 to the emollient group and 701 to the control group. Primary outcome data at 2 years were collected for 1210 infants (87%). Unblinding of research nurses prior to skin examination occurred for 12 infants in the intervention group and 6 in the control group. Adherence in the emollient group was 88% (466/532) at 3 months, 82% (427/519) at 6 months and 74% (375/506) at 12 months. In the control group, contamination due to self-directed use of emollients was reported for 18% (82/457), 17% (62/372) and 15% (49/324) at 3, 6 and 12 months, respectively, for infants who did not have a parental report of a doctor diagnosis of eczema. At age 2 years, eczema was present in 139 (23%) of 598 infants in the emollient group and in 150 (25%) of 612 infants in the control group [adjusted RR 0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.78 to 1.16; p = 0.61; adjusted risk difference −1.2%, 95% CI −5.9% to 3.6%]. All sensitivity analyses conducted, including using multiple imputation for missing primary outcome data, were consistent with the primary analysis. There was no evidence of an interaction effect with allocated group for the primary eczema outcome in any of the subgroup analyses (including FLG genotype). Other eczema definitions supported the results of the primary analysis. Eczema severity and time to onset of eczema were also similar in the two groups. Mean number of skin infections per child in year 1 was 0.23 [standard deviation (SD) 0.68] in the emollient group versus 0.15 (SD 0.46) in the control group; adjusted incidence rate ratio 1.55 (95% CI 1.15 to 2.09). Infant slippage incidents were reported for 15/584 (2.6%) in the emollient group and 11/584 (1.9%) in the control group. Food allergies to milk, egg or peanut at 2 years were confirmed in 41/547 (7.5%) infants in the emollient group and 29/568 (5.1%) in the control group (adjusted RR 1.47, 95% CI 0.93 to 2.33). The largest difference was in the proportion of infants with confirmed food allergy to egg, with an adjusted RR of 1.56 (95% CI 0.92 to 2.65). Results of other measures of food allergy and food sensitisation were similar. The proportion of infants with allergic rhinitis, wheezing and allergic sensitisation to cat dander, grass pollen and dust mite was similar between groups at 2 years. The differences in quality of life (using CHU-9D for the child and EuroQol-5 Dimensions, five-level version for the main carer) between the two groups were very small. Although the emollient intervention period was the first year of life, parents in the emollient group continued to report more frequent moisturiser application through to 5 years than in the control group. By 5 years, 188/608 (31%) parents in the emollient group had reported a clinical diagnosis of eczema in their child since 12 months, compared with 178/631 (28%) in the control group (adjusted RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.30). A diagnosis of food allergy by 5 years was reported for 92/609 (15%) allocated to emollients and 87/632 (14%) allocated to control (adjusted RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.45). Similarly, the percentage of parents reporting that their child had a clinical diagnosis of asthma or allergic rhinitis by 5 years were similar in the two groups. In the complete-case CEA mean cost was £398.23 (SD 1408.39) per child in the emollient group (n = 598) and £312.16 (SD 1105.04) in the control group (n = 610). When intervention use was combined with other health resource use, the adjusted incremental cost was £87.45 (95% CI −54.31 to 229.27). The adjusted difference in the proportion of children without eczema at 2 years was 0.0164 (95% CI −0.0329 to 0.0656) higher in the emollient group compared to the control group. The adjusted incremental cost per percentage decrease in risk of eczema was £5337 at 2 years. Adjusted QALYs for children were very slightly improved (i.e. higher) in the emollient group at 2 years. Conclusions We found no evidence of a useful preventive effect of emollients for eczema at our primary outcome time of 2 years. The failure to show a reduction in eczema was consistent regardless of how eczema was assessed. Some evidence of an increase in skin infections during the intervention period and a possible increase in food allergy at age 2 years was observed. No benefit was observed for time to onset of eczema or eczema severity, and no benefits were observed for eczema, asthma, hay fever or food allergy in longer-term follow-up to 5 years. Emollient use is unlikely to be considered cost effective in this context. Inclusion of individual patient data from all similar eczema prevention studies in further meta-analysis may provide a clearer assessment of whether emollients can prevent eczema and related diseases and provide more certainty about potential harms. Implications for health care The study does not support the use of emollients to prevent eczema and has found a small signal of possible harms, so this intervention cannot be recommended for health care or public health use. As the study relates to prevention of eczema, emollients should continue to be used as part of standard treatment for eczema. Trial registration This trial is registered as ISRCTN21528841. Funding This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 12/67/12) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 29. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Background Despite the effectiveness of cognitive remediation, it is not widely implemented because we do not know whether teams will accept it, how much therapist time is needed, whether there are factors which predict lower benefits, whether it is cost-effective and what is required for large-scale roll-out. Objective To understand the factors that will enhance implementation and benefits of cognitive remediation in Early Intervention Services. Design Four work packages: (1) focus groups and interviews exploring the development of satisfaction and preference measures for staff and service users; participant team interviews to collect data, before and after introducing cognitive remediation, to understand team dynamics; (2) an observational study of a newly developed therapist e-training programme; (3) a multiarm multistage four-arm randomised controlled trial comparing different amounts of therapist input with Treatment as Usual; and (4) an analysis of trial data to understand potential mediating and moderating factors that affect treatment benefits. Setting Early Intervention Services in the United Kingdom National Health Service. Participants Staff and service users in touch with Early Intervention Services. Interventions For the e-training, we piloted and then provided an e-learning system for training cognitive remediation therapists. For the randomised trial, we provided a cognitive remediation software programme (CIRCuiTS™,King’s College London, London) that was delivered in three conditions, all offering up to 42 sessions of cognitive remediation. The conditions were: Intensive (one to one with a therapist), Group treatment with a therapist, Independent with drop-in sessions. Main outcome measures Work package 1: We developed two satisfaction measures and tested a team dynamic model. Work package 2: Feasibility and acceptability questionnaire, time to complete e-training modules. Work package 3: The personal recovery measure – Goal Attainment Scale. Results Work package 1: The service user satisfaction with cognitive remediation was reliable and valid. Although it did not show statistically significant differences between the arms of the trial, the most preferred methods (Group and Intensive) had higher associated satisfaction. Team leadership and especially a flattened hierarchy, resources and time were identified as vital for implementation. Our team dynamic model supported the importance of leadership in influencing organisational climate, which then affected staff attitudes. However, this was only significant before staff had any experience of their patients receiving cognitive remediation. Although the sample was much smaller after therapy, this may indicate that experience of the beneficial therapy changes team dynamics. Work package 2: The e-training modules were completed by 43% of the recruited participants. They judged the training to be feasible and acceptable, but it did take longer to complete than expected. COVID-19 with the increased workload may have had some effects, but our data exploration shows that it was individuals who had most recently qualified who had the best outcomes. This may be because of a lighter workload or that they were more used to online training. Adaptations suggested are now being implemented. Work package 3: Following the interim analysis we closed two arms – Independent therapy and Treatment as Usual. Four hundred and forty-eight patients consented and 377 were eligible and completed baseline assessment. They were randomised: Group 134, Independent 65, Intensive 112 and Treatment as Usual 66. At post therapy, there were no differences between Group and Intensive or between Independent and Treatment as Usual, but the combined Group and Intensive versus Treatment as Usual was significant (mean difference: 5.734; standard error = 1.958; p = 0.003; lower confidence interval = 1.898 to upper confidence interval = 9.571). Our economic analysis showed that Group and Intensive cognitive remediation were not different with respect to quality-adjusted life-years (difference £150, 95% confidence interval –£1132 to £1905). Both conferred significant benefit compared with standard care (Group and Treatment as Usual: difference £257, 95% confidence interval –£1694 to £2615; Intensive vs. Treatment as Usual: difference £260, 95% CI –£1654 to £2239). Their cost–benefit for quality-adjusted life-year improvement was well below the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence threshold for adopting the intervention to National Health Service services. Work package 4: Cognition had a small mediation effect, and negative symptoms moderated the transfer of cognitive benefits to goal attainment. Limitations The trial suffered from recruitment difficulties which were overcome when we switched from block to individual randomisation. The final target was large enough to test our main outcomes and moderating and mediating variables. Conclusions Cognitive remediation should be provided in the National Health Service, involving a trained therapist on a Group or Intensive format with team and training support. Future work We have a large database and will continue to investigate factors that affect cognitive remediation benefits. Study registration This study is registered as ISRCTN14678860 https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN14678860. Funding This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Programme Grants for Applied Research Programme (NIHR award ref: RP-PG-0612-20002) and is published in full in Programme Grants for Applied Research; Vol. 12, No. 4. See the NIHR funding and Awards website for further award information. Plain language summary Cognitive problems in people with schizophrenia predict functional recovery even with the best-possible rehabilitation opportunities. One psychological treatment, cognitive remediation can improve both cognitive and functional recovery, such as in social relationships and occupational achievements. We investigated the optimal way of delivering computerised cognitive remediation in Early Intervention Services by incorporating service user and staff views. Our work involved exploring what treatment factors are important to service users, developing two bespoke cognitive remediation satisfaction measures for service users and service providers. Our investigation of team dynamics suggested that a more flexible leadership style together with increasing resources might be most suited to successful delivery. One challenge for large-scale roll-out of cognitive remediation is therapist training opportunities, so we developed an online programme and then tested it in the United Kingdom and, with a few adaptations, it can be provided to the National Health Service. Although cognitive remediation is effective, we do not know how much therapist time produces therapy benefits, so we conducted a trial comparing three options for cognitive remediation treatment that differed in the amount of the therapist time (Independent, Group and Intensive). We compared these options with a no-treatment group. We investigated benefits of each option in 377 participants from Early Intervention Services. The main benefit assessed was whether participants could achieve their personal goals that were set before therapy began. Although we found no change in a social or occupational functioning scale rated by an observer, the Group and Intensive cognitive remediation produced significant achievements in the participants’ own personal goals compared with those who did not receive therapy or who carried out therapy on their own. We also found that any cognitive remediation therapy option improved thinking skills. Group and Intensive therapy were also cost-effective. Overall, cognitive remediation was acceptable and well liked by service users, so all our data suggest that it should be more easily accessible in the National Health Service. Scientific summary Cognitive remediation (CR) therapy is a psychological intervention targeting cognitive dysfunction associated with psychosis with the goal of improving functional outcomes. Cognitive remediation can improve cognitive and functional recovery, as well as increasing confidence and motivation. Evidence from the largest meta-analysis demonstrated that these effects are durable. National Health Service Early Intervention for psychosis services provide care soon after a diagnosis of psychosis to optimise recovery. Embedding CR in those services may confer long-lasting benefits such as improved social relationships and the opportunity to work or take part in further education. The overarching aim of the Enhancing Cognition and quality of Life in early PSychosiEs (ECLIPSE) research programme was to determine the optimal method of introducing computerised CR therapy (CIRCuiTS™) into NHS Early Intervention Services (EIS) considering improvement in cognitive and social function and cost-effectiveness. The programme was centred on work package 3 (WP3), a randomised, blinded multiarm multisite controlled trial comparing three CR implementation methods with each other and with routine clinical care [Treatment as Usual (TAU)]. To aid the interpretation of WP3 and bolster our recommendations to the NHS, WP1 included a series of studies investigating: patient and staff satisfaction with CR; preference for the methods of CR delivery; and the influence of team organisational climate. Although the CR was computerised and can be completed independently, its effects are boosted via learning, practice and feedback supervised by a therapist. WP2 was a series of studies to design and test an online CR therapist training package to use in their individual teams. Finally, WP4 examined mediators and moderators of the trial results to inform teams about how the clinical features of their individual patients may influence the effect of CR. In WP3, the CR modalities were: Intensive 1 : 1 therapist supervision; Group supervision with one therapist; and Independent (self-determined with infrequent access to therapist supervision). Participants were recruited from EIS in 12 mental health trusts, linked to 6 universities and serving diverse urban/rural populations. They were clinically stable and presented with a non-affective psychotic episode not

Background Shiga-toxin-producing Escherichia coli haemolytic uraemic syndrome affects ~100 United Kingdom children each year. Around half need dialysis, a quarter develop serious complications with long-term consequences and ~3% die. No effective intervention is known; however, some studies report eculizumab, effective in atypical haemolytic uraemic syndrome, may be effective. Objectives To determine whether the severity of Shiga-toxin-producing Escherichia coli haemolytic uraemic syndrome is less in those given eculizumab. Design Randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group trial with internal pilot phase and nested mechanistic laboratory studies. Setting Paediatric nephrology units in 12 United Kingdom hospitals. Participants Children aged 6 months to < 19 years weighing ≥ 5 kg, with presumed Shiga-toxin-producing Escherichia coli haemolytic uraemic syndrome, including ‘injury’ or ‘failure’ category of the acute kidney injury paediatric risk/injury/failure/loss/end criteria. Intervention Participants were randomised in a 1 : 1 ratio to receive intravenous eculizumab or placebo on day 1 and 8. All received meningococcal vaccination and prophylactic antibiotics. Main outcome measures The primary outcome measure was a multidomain clinical severity score, reflecting morbidity until day 60. Secondary outcome measures included survival, duration of renal replacement therapy, persistent neurological defect (day 60) and presence of chronic kidney disease at 1 year. Mechanistic studies assessed complement activation and vascular endothelial growth factor profiles in plasma ± urine samples. In vitro cell co-culture work assessed the effect of Shiga toxin on endothelial cells. Results Thirty-six participants from 10 sites were randomised: 17 to eculizumab and 19 to placebo. The target sample size was 134 participants – recruitment stopped early due to low recruitment (factors included reduced incidence and limited out-of-hours research infrastructure) and the COVID-19 pandemic. The mean clinical severity score for participants randomised to eculizumab was 11.5 (standard deviation 8.4) compared to 14.6 (standard deviation 7.7) for participants randomised to placebo (adjusted mean difference: −2.5, 95% confidence interval −7.8 to 2.8, p = 0.3). Five participants (three eculizumab, two placebo) experienced an adverse event; there were seven serious adverse events in six participants (five eculizumab, one placebo). Urinary complement factor H and vascular endothelial growth factor levels were high initially and subsequently normalised. Shiga toxin caused a podocyte-dependent decrease in endothelial cell factor H levels. Conclusions and limitations There was no significant difference in mean clinical severity score between eculizumab and placebo groups – since the trial was underpowered, this cannot be interpreted as evidence of no effect. No significant safety concerns were observed. With further validation, the Eculizumab in Shiga-toxin-producing Escherichia coli Haemolytic Uraemic Syndrome clinical severity score may be an outcome measure for future trials. Our results imply that Shiga toxin causes complement-dependent glomerular endothelial cell injury through its action on podocytes and subsequent cellular cross-talk. Future work We will continue to investigate cross talk between podocytes and endothelial cells after exposure to Shiga toxin and further develop plasma/urine biomarkers for diagnosis of Shiga-toxin-producing Escherichia coli haemolytic uraemic syndrome. Trial registration This trial is registered as EudraCT-2016-000997-39 and ISRCTN89553116. Funding This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation (EME) programme (NIHR award ref: 14/48/43) and is published in full in Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation; Vol. 11, No. 11. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information. Plain language summary Why did we do this study? Annually, approximately 100 United Kingdom children develop Shiga-toxin-producing Escherichia coli haemolytic uraemic syndrome after infection with a diarrhoea-causing bug. The bug makes a toxin (Shiga toxin) that damages blood vessels, especially in the kidneys. Half need dialysis (artificial kidney support), about a quarter suffer fits or a stroke and about 3% die. Most children fully recover, but about a quarter suffer permanent kidney or brain damage. There are no known effective treatments. Eculizumab, a medicine which blocks part of the immune system called complement, may work. What was the question? Does eculizumab reduce the severity of Shiga-toxin-producing Escherichia coli haemolytic uraemic syndrome? What did we do? We planned to recruit 134 children, but difficulties with recruitment and the COVID-19 pandemic meant the study was stopped early after 36 children had been recruited; 17 received eculizumab, 19 received a dummy medicine (placebo). We compared children in each group using a score that measured how their kidneys and other organs were affected. We studied samples of their blood and urine, and also how Shiga toxin damages kidney cells in the laboratory. What did we find? The severity of illness was similar in both groups; however, because we only studied a small number of children, we cannot be sure this means that eculizumab does not work. Eculizumab appeared to be safe in this condition. In the blood and urine samples, we saw evidence that complement is involved in the illness. We also discovered a new way that Shiga toxin damages kidney cells. What does this mean? We have been unable to show whether eculizumab is a worthwhile treatment for children with this condition. However, we have learnt lots about how the illness is caused and hope these results can be combined with other studies to give us a clearer answer. Scientific summary Background Shiga-toxin-producing Escherichia coli haemolytic uraemic syndrome affects around 100 UK children each year, following gastrointestinal infection with Shiga-toxin-producing E. coli. Around half of affected children will need dialysis, about a quarter develop serious complications with long-term consequences and about 3% die. All patients require long-term follow-up because of the risk of developing chronic kidney disease (CKD). No intervention has definitively been shown to reduce morbidity or mortality in this condition, and therefore treatment is supportive. Case reports and case series suggest that eculizumab (Soliris®, Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Boston, MA), an inhibitor of the complement system and an effective treatment for the related condition, atypical haemolytic uraemic syndrome, may be effective in this condition. Until very recently, there were no published data regarding the efficacy and safety of eculizumab in Shiga-toxin-producing E. coli haemolytic uraemic syndrome, and yet despite this its use has risen globally. A recent randomised phase 3 clinical trial reported comparison of eculizumab with placebo in 100 children with Shiga-toxin-producing E. coli haemolytic uraemic syndrome (Garnier A, Brochard K, Kwon T, Sellier-Leclerc A-L, Lahoche A, Allain Launay E, et al. Efficacy and safety of Eculizumab in pediatric patients affected by Shiga Toxin-Related Hemolytic and Uremic Syndrome: a randomized, placebo-controlled trial. J Am Soc Nephrol 2023;34:1561–73). Patients with severe multi-organ involvement were excluded. Four patients in the placebo group were withdrawn and subsequently received eculizumab. There was no difference between treatment groups in the proportion of children who required renal replacement therapy 48 hours after randomisation, In addition, no differences between groups were seen in the secondary outcome measures of extra-renal manifestations, duration of hospitalisation and mortality. During follow up, there was a slight difference in the proportion who exhibited renal sequelae at 12 months post randomisation (20 patients in the eculizumab group (43.48%) and 29 patients (64.44%) in the placebo group (P = 0.04). The authors concluded that eculizumab seemed to have no impact on the course of acute kidney injury and interpreted the 12-month follow-up data with caution. No data have been published which include the role of eculizumab in patients with severe manifestations of disease in a controlled setting. Objectives of the main trial The Eculizumab in Shiga-toxin-producing Escherichia coli Haemolytic Uraemic Syndrome (ECUSTEC) trial was designed to test the hypothesis that treatment with eculizumab reduces the severity of Shiga-toxin-producing E. coli haemolytic uraemic syndrome in children aged 6 months–< 19 years. We also wanted to assess the safety of eculizumab and test the hypothesis that treatment with eculizumab reduces the incidence of CKD following Shiga-toxin-producing E. coli haemolytic uraemic syndrome. Objectives of the mechanistic substudies The mechanistic component of the trial had the following objectives: to investigate the time course of systemic complement activation in Shiga-toxin-producing E. coli haemolytic uraemic syndrome and its relation to the severity of disease to determine whether thrombotic microangiopathy (TMA) in Shiga-toxin-producing E. coli haemolytic uraemic syndrome occurs via a Shiga-toxin-mediated reduction in podocyte vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) production, leading to loss of complement regulation to test whether neutrophils derived from patients with acute Shiga-toxin-producing E. coli haemolytic uraemic syndrome deliver Shiga toxin to podocytes to assess whether any genetic variations in patients with Shiga-toxin-producing E. coli haemolytic uraemic syndrome point to novel pathogenic mechanisms. Methods Design The trial was a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group trial of two doses of eculizumab in children (aged 6 months–< 19 years) with Shiga-toxin-producing E. coli Haemolytic Uraemic Syndrome. The trial had an internal pilot phase and included nested mechanistic laboratory studies and a cost-effectiveness evaluation, although the latter was not undertaken following the trial being stopped early. The mechanistic substudies were optional; all participants in the main trial were offered the opportunity to participate in the substudies, which involved providing blood and urine samples over the first 30 days of the trial. Participant blood and urine samples were used to explore the evidence for, and time course of, complement activation in this condition. Using both patient samples and an in vitro cell co-culture model, evidence was sought to support the hypothesis that Shiga toxin causes a glomerular TMA as a consequence of its effect on podocyte VEGF production. This included measurement of patient urine and plasma complement factor H (CFH) and VEGF and plasma complement activation products [by both enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) and a novel degradomics technique]. In the co-culture experiments, glomerular endothelial cells were exposed to Shiga toxin in the presence and absence of podocytes. Setting The trial was conducted in 12 sites in NHS hospital settings across the UK with the support of 88 Patient Identification Centres. Participants Informed consent was sought from parents/guardians of eligible children (those aged 6 months–< 19 years weighing ≥ 5 kg, with a clinical diagnosis of Shiga-toxin-producing E. coli haemolytic uraemic syndrome, including acute kidney injury (AKI) equivalent to the ‘injury’ or ‘failure’ category of the paediatric risk/injury/failure/loss/end criteria). Eligible young people aged 16–18 years provided their own consent for participation in the trial, with assent from younger children if appropriate (according to age). Screening and randomisation Screening began as soon as possible after a diagnosis of Shiga-toxin-producing E. coli haemolytic uraemic syndrome was suspected. Once eligibility was confirmed and informed consent obtained, the participants were commenced on prophylactic antibiotics, and unless contra-indicated or already administered, participants were also vaccinated against meningococcal infection. Participants were then randomised into the ECUSTEC trial via a secure online central randomisation system. Participants were randomised at the level of the individual in a 1 : 1 ratio to either eculizumab or placebo, which was commenced as soon as possible after randomisation. A minimisation algorithm was used to ensure balance in the treatment allocation over the following variables: centre, severity of AKI and hydration status. To avoid predictability in the randomisation, a random element was included in the minimisation algorithm, so that each patient had a probability (unspecified here), of being randomised to the opposite treatment that they would have otherwise received. Intervention Each participant received two intravenous infusion doses of either eculizumab (dose according to first two doses of induction regimen for atypical haemolytic uraemic syndrome) or placebo. The first dose was given as soon as possible after randomisation (designated day 1), with the second dose given 7 days later (i.e. on day 8). They also received vaccination against meningococcal disease and an 8-week course of antibiotic prophylaxis. The participants, parents/guardians, clinical staff and research teams were blind to randomised treatment allocation throughout the study. Outcome measures Primary The ECUSTEC clinical severity score (CSS), a purpose-developed, multidomain score comprising severity of AKI and extrarenal events. A single score is assigned at day 60 to reflect cumulative morbidity up until that point. The score ranges from 1 to 69 with higher scores indicating greater disease severity. Secondary Overall survival. Duration of renal replacement therapy (days). Duration of thrombocytopenia (number of consecutive days until platelet count > 150 × 109/l). Duration of haemolysis (number of days until lactate dehydrogenase within local centre reference range). Number of packed red blood cell transfusions required and volume (ml/kg). Duration markers of inflammation present (number of days until neutrophil cell count and C-reactive protein are in normal range for that centre). Persistent neurological defect at day 60 measured by structured expert assessment to include central nervous system examination, vision, hearing and neuropsychological assessment. CKD at 52 weeks (a composite end point of the presence of hypertension, albuminuria or estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) < 90 ml/minute/1.73 m2 at 52 weeks). eGFR measurement using a centralised cystatin C assay at 52 weeks. Mechanistic studies Urine CFH levels. Urine VEGF levels. Presence of urine markers of podocyte damage (nephrin and Wilms tumour-1). Plasma VEGF and factor H levels. Plasma complement activation products (Bb, C3a, C4a and sC5b9 by ELISA and C3 and C4 activation markers by degradomics). Glomerular endothelial surface levels of factor H and C3d (a marker of complement activation) in a co-culture models of human conditionally immortalised podocytes and glomerular endothelial cells exposed to Shiga toxin. Whole exome sequencing and serum anti-factor H antibody levels. Results The target sample size was 134 participants, but recruitment was stopped early due to low recruitment and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. At the point the trial was stopped, 108 children had been screened for participation, of whom 87 were deemed eligible to participate. Thirty-six children were consented and randomised; 17 were randomised to eculizumab and 19 were randomised to placebo. One participant withdrew from the trial and one participant died. The majority of baseline data of the participants were comparable across the two groups; however, the participants in the placebo group were slightly older and consequently heavier than those in the eculizumab group. Reasons for slow recruitment included a fall in the incidence of Shiga-toxin-producing E. coli haemolytic uraemic syndrome during the trial period (up to a 37% reduction) and a lack of out-of-hours infrastructure for undertaking acute interventional clinical trials in children. The mean CSS at day 60 for participants randomised to eculizumab was 11.5 [standard deviation (SD) 8.4] compared to 14.6 (SD 7.7) for participants randomised to placebo [adjusted mean difference: −2.5, 95% confidence interval (CI) −7.8 to 2.8, p = 0.3]. Five participants (three eculizumab, two placebo) experienced an adverse event, and there were seven serious adverse events (SAEs) in six participants (five eculizumab, one placebo). None of the SAEs were considered related to the trial treatment. Mechanistic substudies Of the 36 participants recruited to the main trial, 32 consented to take part in the mechanistic studies and provided blood and/or urine samples. In anuric patients, only blood samples were collected. Urine factor H and vascular endothelial growth factor levels in serial samples The highest urine factor H levels were at day 1 (150 ng/ml), diminishing by day 4 (30 ng/ml), and completely normalising by day 30 (undetectable). The highest urine VEGF levels were at day 1 (average 1300 ng/ml) and by day 30 the levels were below 20 ng/ml. Markers of podocyte damage Western blots of urine cell pellets showed acute podocyte loss during active disease, which recovered by day 8. Plasma factor H and vascular endothelial growth factor levels No difference was seen for plasma levels of either factor H or VEGF at day 1 or day 30. Plasma degradomics analysis In a sample of five patients, N-termini consistent with complement C3 and C4 activation were much more abundant at day 1 compared with day 3. In vitro cell co-culture In response to Shiga toxin, there was a reduction in glomerular endothelial factor H levels, accompanied by evidence of complement activation (increased C3d levels) and this was critically dependent on the presence of podocytes. Shiga toxin had no effect when added to endothelial cells alone. Plasma complement activation products Mean plasma levels of Bb were elevated in both groups at baseline (4.38 mcg/ml in the eculizumab group and 10.38 mcg/ml in the placebo group, normal range 0.48–1.62 mcg/ml). They were also elevated at day 2 (5.91 mcg/ml in the eculizumab group and 4.09 mcg/ml in the placebo group) and day 4 (4.90 mcg/ml in the eculizumab group and 3.16 mcg/ml in the placebo group). At day 6 and day 8, Bb levels remained elevated in the placebo group (6.21 and 3.47 mcg/ml respectively) but were normal in the eculizumab group. In both groups, mean Bb levels were in the normal range at day 30. Mean plasma levels of C3a were elevated in both groups at baseline and at days 2 and 4. At days 6 and 8, mean levels remained elevated in the placebo group while mean levels in the eculizumab group were in the normal range. Levels were in the normal range for both groups by day 30. Mean plasma levels of C4a were elevated at all time points in both groups but fell significantly at day 30. Mean levels were 3852, 3026, 3423, 3067, 3425 and 1623 ng/ml at days 1, 2, 4, 6, 8 and 30 in the eculizumab group (normal range 110–699 ng/ml) and 3970, 3573, 2673, 4348, 2844 and 1992 ng/ml at the same respective time points in the placebo group. Mean plasma levels of sC5b9 were normal in both groups at all time points with the exception of day 4 and day 6 in the placebo group, which were elevated (487 and 514 ng/ml respectively, normal range 95–467 ng/ml). In the placebo group, a linear relationship was not established between CSS and baseline Bb (r = 0.43, p = 0.2); C3a (r = −0.16, p = 0.7); C4a (r = 0.15, p = 0.7) or sC5b9 (r = −0.17, p = 0.7). Similarly, a linear relationship was not established between CSS and the maximum value of Bb (r = 0.45, p = 0.1); C3a (r = 0.15, p = 0.6); C4a (r = 0.23, p = 0.4) or sC5b9 (r = −0.22, p = 0.5). Delivery of Shiga toxin to podocytes from patient-derived neutrophils Insufficient patient samples were obtained to complete this part of the work. Genetic variations in patients with Shiga-toxin-producing Escherichia coli haemolytic uraemic syndrome Data from whole exome sequencing have been obtained and analysis is ongoing. Conclusions In children with Shiga-toxin-producing E. coli haemolytic uraemic syndrome, the mean CSSs at day 60 were similar between those randomised to eculizumab and those randomised to placebo. However, since the trial was stopped early and did not recruit to the planned sample size, this cannot be interpreted as evidence of no effect. In order to deliver successful clinical trials of investigational medicinal products in acutely unwell children, a review of out-of-hours paediatric research infrastructure may be required. In the mechanistic substudies, we have established that urine factor H and VEGF levels are sensitive measures of early disease activity, and have demonstrated complement activation in patient serum using both ELISA and sophisticated proteomics technology. Urine factor H and VEGF levels and plasma degradomics for C3 and C4 proteins could all be further explored as new biomarkers of acute Shiga-toxin-producing E. coli haemolytic uraemic syndrome. Our co-culture cell work has demonstrated that podocyte cross-talk is responsible for factor H and complement activation levels on endothelial cells. Collectively this strongly supports the mechanistic hypothesis of a complement-mediated disease driven via the podocyte as the target cell. Trial registration This trial is registered as EudraCT2016-000997-39 and ISRCTN89553116. Funding This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation (EME) programme (NIHR award ref: 14/48/43) and is published in full in Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation; Vol. 11, No. 11. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Background Anterior cruciate ligament injury of the knee is common and leads to decreased activity and risk of secondary osteoarthritis of the knee. Management of patients with a non-acute anterior cruciate ligament injury can be non-surgical (rehabilitation) or surgical (reconstruction). However, insufficient evidence exists to guide treatment. Objective(s) To determine in patients with non-acute anterior cruciate ligament injury and symptoms of instability whether a strategy of surgical management (reconstruction) without prior rehabilitation was more clinically and cost-effective than non-surgical management (rehabilitation). Design A pragmatic, multicentre, superiority, randomised controlled trial with two-arm parallel groups and 1:1 allocation. Due to the nature of the interventions, no blinding could be carried out. Setting Twenty-nine NHS orthopaedic units in the United Kingdom. Participants Participants with a symptomatic (instability) non-acute anterior cruciate ligament-injured knee. Interventions Patients in the surgical management arm underwent surgical anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction as soon as possible and without any further rehabilitation. Patients in the rehabilitation arm attended physiotherapy sessions and only were listed for reconstructive surgery on continued instability following rehabilitation. Surgery following initial rehabilitation was an expected outcome for many patients and within protocol. Main outcome measures The primary outcome was the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score 4 at 18 months post randomisation. Secondary outcomes included return to sport/activity, intervention-related complications, patient satisfaction, expectations of activity, generic health quality of life, knee-specific quality of life and resource usage. Results Three hundred and sixteen participants were recruited between February 2017 and April 2020 with 156 randomised to surgical management and 160 to rehabilitation. Forty-one per cent (n = 65) of those allocated to rehabilitation underwent subsequent reconstruction within 18 months with 38% (n = 61) completing rehabilitation and not undergoing surgery. Seventy-two per cent (n = 113) of those allocated to surgery underwent reconstruction within 18 months. Follow-up at the primary outcome time point was 78% (n = 248; surgical, n = 128; rehabilitation, n = 120). Both groups improved over time. Adjusted mean Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score 4 scores at 18 months had increased to 73.0 in the surgical arm and to 64.6 in the rehabilitation arm. The adjusted mean difference was 7.9 (95% confidence interval 2.5 to 13.2; p = 0.005) in favour of surgical management. The per-protocol analyses supported the intention-to-treat results, with all treatment effects favouring surgical management at a level reaching statistical significance. There was a significant difference in Tegner Activity Score at 18 months. Sixty-eight per cent (n = 65) of surgery patients did not reach their expected activity level compared to 73% (n = 63) in the rehabilitation arm. There were no differences between groups in surgical complications (n = 1 surgery, n = 2 rehab) or clinical events (n = 11 surgery, n = 12 rehab). Of surgery patients, 82.9% were satisfied compared to 68.1% of rehabilitation patients. Health economic analysis found that surgical management led to improved health-related quality of life compared to non-surgical management (0.052 quality-adjusted life-years, p = 0.177), but with higher NHS healthcare costs (£1107, p

Background Gallstone disease is a common gastrointestinal disorder in industrialised societies. The prevalence of gallstones in the adult population is estimated to be approximately 10–15%, and around 80% remain asymptomatic. At present, cholecystectomy is the default option for people with symptomatic gallstone disease. Objectives To assess the clinical and cost-effectiveness of observation/conservative management compared with laparoscopic cholecystectomy for preventing recurrent symptoms and complications in adults presenting with uncomplicated symptomatic gallstones in secondary care. Design Parallel group, multicentre patient randomised superiority pragmatic trial with up to 24 months follow-up and embedded qualitative research. Within-trial cost–utility and 10-year Markov model analyses. Development of a core outcome set for uncomplicated symptomatic gallstone disease. Setting Secondary care elective settings. Participants Adults with symptomatic uncomplicated gallstone disease referred to a secondary care setting were considered for inclusion. Interventions Participants were randomised 1: 1 at clinic to receive either laparoscopic cholecystectomy or observation/conservative management. Main outcome measures The primary outcome was quality of life measured by area under the curve over 18 months using the Short Form-36 bodily pain domain. Secondary outcomes included the Otago gallstones’ condition-specific questionnaire, Short Form-36 domains (excluding bodily pain), area under the curve over 24 months for Short Form-36 bodily pain domain, persistent symptoms, complications and need for further treatment. No outcomes were blinded to allocation. Results Between August 2016 and November 2019, 434 participants were randomised (217 in each group) from 20 United Kingdom centres. By 24 months, 64 (29.5%) in the observation/conservative management group and 153 (70.5%) in the laparoscopic cholecystectomy group had received surgery, median time to surgery of 9.0 months (interquartile range, 5.6–15.0) and 4.7 months (interquartile range 2.6–7.9), respectively. At 18 months, the mean Short Form-36 norm-based bodily pain score was 49.4 (standard deviation 11.7) in the observation/conservative management group and 50.4 (standard deviation 11.6) in the laparoscopic cholecystectomy group. The mean area under the curve over 18 months was 46.8 for both groups with no difference: mean difference –0.0, 95% confidence interval (–1.7 to 1.7); p-value 0.996; n = 203 observation/conservative, n = 205 cholecystectomy. There was no evidence of differences in quality of life, complications or need for further treatment at up to 24 months follow-up. Condition-specific quality of life at 24 months favoured cholecystectomy: mean difference 9.0, 95% confidence interval (4.1 to 14.0), p

Background Pelvic organ prolapse is common, causes unpleasant symptoms and negatively affects women’s quality of life. In the UK, most women with pelvic organ prolapse attend clinics for pessary care. Objectives To determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of vaginal pessary self-management on prolapse-specific quality of life for women with prolapse compared with clinic-based care; and to assess intervention acceptability and contextual influences on effectiveness, adherence and fidelity. Design A multicentre, parallel-group, superiority randomised controlled trial with a mixed-methods process evaluation. Participants Women attending UK NHS outpatient pessary services, aged ≥ 18 years, using a pessary of any type/material (except shelf, Gellhorn or Cube) for at least 2 weeks. Exclusions: women with limited manual dexterity, with cognitive deficit (prohibiting consent or self-management), pregnant or non-English-speaking. Intervention The self-management intervention involved a 30-minute teaching appointment, an information leaflet, a 2-week follow-up telephone call and a local clinic telephone helpline number. Clinic-based care involved routine appointments determined by centres’ usual practice. Allocation Remote web-based application; minimisation was by age, pessary user type and centre. Blinding Participants, those delivering the intervention and researchers were not blinded to group allocation. Outcomes The patient-reported primary outcome (measured using the Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire-7) was prolapse-specific quality of life, and the cost-effectiveness outcome was incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (a specifically developed health Resource Use Questionnaire was used) at 18 months post randomisation. Secondary outcome measures included self-efficacy and complications. Process evaluation data were collected by interview, audio-recording and checklist. Analysis was by intention to treat. Results Three hundred and forty women were randomised (self-management, n = 169; clinic-based care, n = 171). At 18 months post randomisation, 291 questionnaires with valid primary outcome data were available (self-management, n = 139; clinic-based care, n = 152). Baseline economic analysis was based on 264 participants (self-management, n = 125; clinic-based care, n = 139) with valid quality of life and resource use data. Self-management was an acceptable intervention. There was no group difference in prolapse-specific quality of life at 18 months (adjusted mean difference −0.03, 95% confidence interval −9.32 to 9.25). There was fidelity to intervention delivery. Self-management was cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained, with an estimated incremental net benefit of £564.32 and an 80.81% probability of cost-effectiveness. At 18 months, more pessary complications were reported in the clinic-based care group (adjusted mean difference 3.83, 95% confidence interval 0.81 to 6.86). There was no group difference in general self-efficacy, but self-managing women were more confident in pessary self-management activities. In both groups, contextual factors impacted on adherence and effectiveness. There were no reported serious unexpected serious adverse reactions. There were 32 serious adverse events (self-management, n = 17; clinic-based care, n = 14), all unrelated to the intervention. Skew in the baseline data for the Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire-7, the influence of the global COVID-19 pandemic, the potential effects of crossover and the lack of ethnic diversity in the recruited sample were possible limitations. Conclusions Self-management was acceptable and cost-effective, led to fewer complications and did not improve or worsen quality of life for women with prolapse compared with clinic-based care. Future research is needed to develop a quality-of-life measure that is sensitive to the changes women desire from treatment. Study registration This study is registered as ISRCTN62510577. Funding This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 16/82/01) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 23. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information. Plain language summary Pelvic organ prolapse is a common and distressing condition experienced by large numbers of women. Prolapse is when the organs that are usually in the pelvis drop down into the vagina. Women experience a feeling of something coming down into the vagina, along with bowel, bladder and sexual problems. One possible treatment is a vaginal pessary. The pessary is a device that is inserted into the vagina and holds the pelvic organs back in their usual place. Women who use a vaginal pessary usually come back to clinic every 6 months to have their pessary removed and replaced; this is called clinic-based care. However, it is possible for a woman to look after the pessary herself; this is called self-management. This study compared self-management with clinic-based care. Three hundred and forty women with prolapse took part; 171 received clinic-based care and 169 undertook self-management. Each woman had an equal chance of being in either group. Women in the self-management group received a 30-minute teaching appointment, an information leaflet, a 2-week follow-up telephone call and a telephone number for their local centre. Women in the clinic-based care group returned to clinic as advised by the treating healthcare professional. Self-management was found to be acceptable. Women self-managed their pessary in ways that suited their lifestyle. After 18 months, there was no difference between the groups in women’s quality of life. Women in the self-management group experienced fewer pessary complications than women who received clinic-based care. Self-management costs less to deliver than clinic-based care. In summary, self-management did not improve women’s quality of life more than clinic-based care, but it did lead to women experiencing fewer complications and cost less to deliver in the NHS. The findings support self-management as a treatment pathway for women using a pessary for prolapse. Scientific summary Background Pelvic organ prolapse (hereafter prolapse) is the descent of some, or all, of the female pelvic organs from their usual position in the pelvis into the vagina. Prolapse is a common problem, with studies suggesting that up to 65% of women may be affected. Prolapse incidence increases with age. As the population ages, prolapse presents a growing health problem. Women who experience prolapse report bothersome symptoms that negatively affect their quality of life and body image. Symptoms include a feeling of ‘something coming down’ into the vagina; urinary, bowel and sexual symptoms; and pain. Prolapse can be treated conservatively or surgically. Between 10% and 30% of women who have prolapse surgery may need repeat surgery, and the controversy around the use of surgical mesh has brought the focus onto conservative treatment options. One conservative treatment option is vaginal pessary. The pessary is an inexpensive mechanical device that is inserted into the vagina to support the pelvic organs. Pessaries are widely used in the NHS, with two-thirds of women initially choosing a vaginal pessary to treat their prolapse symptoms. The current UK care pathway for women who use a pessary as treatment for prolapse is that the pessary is usually fitted at a gynaecological clinic, or occasionally at a general practitioner surgery, and the woman returns approximately every 6 months to have it removed and replaced with a new one. However, having to return to clinic every 6 months may be inconvenient for women, having a pessary permanently in situ may interfere with sexual intercourse, and the patient may require a review in clinic before 6 months because the pessary has fallen out or because of pessary complications (e.g. vaginal discomfort). An alternative to clinic-based pessary care is pessary self-management, whereby a woman removes and reinserts the pessary herself at home, thus offering her more control over her ability to maintain and improve her own health. Research in other clinical domains suggests that self-management is beneficial because people improve their self-efficacy (confidence) in looking after their own health. To the best of our knowledge, there is no current evidence on the effectiveness of pessary self-management for women with prolapse. The treatment of prolapse with self-care pessary (TOPSY) study aims to fill that evidence gap. Objective The TOPSY trial aimed to evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of self-management of a vaginal pessary on the prolapse-specific quality of life of women with pelvic organ prolapse when compared with clinic-based care. Clinic-based care is the standard operating model for many pessary services across the UK. The process evaluation undertaken concurrently with the trial aimed to assess, using a mixed-methods design, intervention acceptability, pathways to effectiveness, adherence to treatment and fidelity. Methods We undertook a parallel-group, multicentre, randomised controlled trial, with individual randomisation, which assessed the superiority of self-management compared with clinic-based pessary care for women who used a pessary for prolapse. Allocation was carried out remotely via a web-based computer system, with minimisation by age (< 65/≥ 65 years), pessary user type (new user/existing user) and centre. A sample size of 330 women (165 per group) was required to provide 90% power to detect a difference of 20 points in the Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire-7 score (which measures prolapse-specific quality of life) at 18 months after randomisation, assuming a standard deviation of 50, two-sided alpha of 0.05 and 20% loss to follow-up. Participants were recruited from 21 UK centres where pessary care was routinely provided. Women who were new pessary users (had used a pessary for ≤ 3 months) and existing users (had used a pessary for > 3 months) were identified by centre staff and via patient notes, clinic lists, caseloads and referral letters. Potentially eligible women were sent an invitation letter or approached in clinic by centre staff. Women were eligible for inclusion if they were aged ≥ 18 years, were using a pessary of any material or type (except shelf, Gellhorn or cube pessaries) and had retained the pessary for at least 2 weeks. Women were excluded if they had limited manual dexterity that would affect their ability to remove and replace their pessary; were judged by their healthcare team to have a cognitive deficit such that it was not possible for them to provide informed consent or to self-manage; were pregnant; or had insufficient understanding of the English language (the self-management intervention was only available in English). The primary outcome of effectiveness was prolapse-specific quality of life, measured using the Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire-7, and of cost-effectiveness was incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year at 18 months post randomisation. Interim follow-ups were undertaken at 6 and 12 months. Secondary outcome measures included generic quality of life [measured using the EuroQol-5 Dimensions, five-level (EQ-5D-5L)]; pelvic floor symptoms (measured using the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory-20); sexual function (measured using the prolapse/incontinence sexual questionnaire-IUGA-Revised); self-efficacy (measured using the General Self-efficacy Scale); pessary complications; pessary use; and pessary confidence. Resource use data were collected using a specifically developed health Resource Use Questionnaire. Study centres received a training visit during which the principles of self-management were explained and the intervention delivery staff were trained in the components of the intervention. Each centre also received a training manual that provided written guidance on the intervention. Women randomised to self-management received: a 30-minute self-management teaching appointment where they were taught to, and given the opportunity to try to, remove, clean and reinsert their own pessary a self-management information leaflet that provided written and diagrammatic information on pessary self-management a 2-week follow-up telephone call to assess if they had been able to remove, clean and reinsert their pessary since the teaching appointment and to assess any difficulties they experienced a telephone helpline number for their local clinical centre. Women in the clinic-based care group received routine appointments at which their pessary was removed and cleaned, or changed for a new one, and replaced by a healthcare professional. The interval between the appointments was determined by the usual practice of the centre. A concurrent mixed-methods process evaluation was undertaken to assess intervention acceptability, pathways to effectiveness, adherence to treatment and fidelity. Recruiting staff at centres were asked to audio-record a sample of their recruitment discussions. Staff delivering the intervention were asked to record a sample of self-management teaching appointments and 2-week follow-up telephone calls and to complete a checklist for every self-management teaching session undertaken to allow assessment of fidelity to the intervention. A subsample of women who were randomised in the trial and consented to take part in an additional interview study were interviewed at baseline and 18 months. Eligible women who declined to be randomised but were willing to take part in an interview study were also interviewed at baseline and 18 months. The Pessary Use Questionnaire included an open question about women’s experiences of their trial group. The interviews and open questions aimed to assess acceptability, adherence and pathways to effectiveness. Finally, recruiting centre staff and healthcare professionals who delivered the intervention were invited to take part in an interview to increase understanding of pathways to effectiveness and fidelity. A within-trial economic evaluation was conducted to compare the costs and benefits, measured in quality-adjusted life-years, of self-management with clinic-based care over the 18 months post randomisation. In addition, a decision-analytic model was developed using the trial data to extend the analysis over a 5-year period. Healthcare resource use data were collected from the clinic visit and telephone support case report forms and from the participant-completed Resource Use Questionnaire. Costs were attached to resource use from published sources. Health state utility values were elicited from responses to the EQ-5D-5L to estimate the difference in quality-adjusted life-years between the trial groups. The trial analysis followed the intention to treat principle, and the analyses of all study elements were documented in prespecified analysis plans. The qualitative analysis for the process evaluation followed framework analysis methods and, where appropriate, case study analytic methods. Results Key results: trial Three hundred and forty women were randomised: 169 to the self-management group and 171 to the clinic-based care group. At 18 months post randomisation, 291 questionnaires with valid primary outcome data were available: 139 (82.2%) in the self-management group and 152 (88.9%) in the clinic-based care group. There was no evidence of a difference between the groups in prolapse-specific quality of life (measured using the Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire-7) at 18 months (adjusted mean difference −0.03, 95% confidence interval −9.32 to 9.25). Sensitivity analysis of the primary outcome showed no significant difference between the groups under a range of different assumptions and prespecified sensitivity analyses. A subgroup analysis of the primary outcome showed no significant effect of trial group by subgroup interactions (subgroups were age < 65 vs. ≥ 65 years, new vs. existing pessary user and hysterectomy vs. no hysterectomy at baseline). At the 18-month follow-up, a greater proportion of pessary complications were reported in the clinic-based care group than in the self-management group (adjusted mean difference 3.83, 95% confidence interval 0.81 to 6.86). There was no difference between the groups in general self-efficacy, but women in the self-management group were more confident in their ability to manage pessary-related problems and to insert and remove their pessary. An analysis adjusting for clinic-based care appointments cancelled due to the COVID-19 pandemic did not alter the findings. Key results: process evaluation Self-management was reported to be an acceptable intervention to women and to healthcare professionals. Women (whether they received self-management or not) and healthcare professionals reported benefits from pessary self-management to women and the NHS and valued the possibilities provided to women who could self-manage their pessary, such as flexibility and independence in using the pessary as needed. There was fidelity to self-management intervention delivery and there was minimal variance in the delivery of clinic-based care across the study centres. Self-management delivery can be integrated within existing service structures. Interview data demonstrated that women’s adherence to their allocated group ranged from not adherent at all to completely adherent in all aspects, and this was the case in both groups. The COVID-19 pandemic did have an impact on adherence, especially among those in the clinic-based care group when clinic appointments were suspended, which led some women to remove their own pessary. Although the pandemic might have had some effect on adherence, multiple other contextual factors influenced adherence, such as good general health, which influenced it in both groups. Multiple contextual factors impacted on pathways to effectiveness for both trial groups. There was variance in women’s quality of life in both groups across the 18 months’ follow-up. The pessary itself influenced women’s quality of life, regardless of trial group. There was at least the potential for self-management to further enhance that quality of life over and above the influence of the pessary itself. Women in the self-management group had different self-efficacy from those in the clinic-based group. Women in the self-management group felt more confident in addressing common problems with their pessary, such as discharge or slippage, on their own without the need for additional clinic appointments. Key results: economic evaluation The within-trial economic analysis indicated that clinic-based care was dominated by self-management. There was no significant difference in the mean number of quality-adjusted life-years gained between self-management and clinic-based care (0.021), but the mean cost was lower for self-management than for clinic-based care (£578 vs. £728). The incremental net benefit estimated at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained was £564, with an 80.8% probability of cost-effectiveness. The modelling results are consistent with the trial analysis. The incremental net benefit at 5 years was estimated as £4221 and the probability that self-management is a cost-effective intervention was estimated as 69.7%. Key results: synthesis There was no evidence that self-management improved prolapse-specific or general quality of life more than clinic-based care. Although qualitative findings suggested that quality of life had the potential to be improved more in the self-management group, this did not translate beyond participant-level data. The proposed mechanism of action for the intervention was self-efficacy. General self-efficacy did not differ between the groups at 18 months. Women who self-managed were more confident in their abilities to insert and remove their pessary and to manage problems experienced with their pessary than women in the clinic-based care group. There was fidelity to the self-management and clinic-based care intervention delivery, with the groups receiving different interventions, confirming that the trial was a true test. There was variance in adherence to trial group by the women; approximately 40% of the clinic-based care group removed the pessary themselves at least once at some point during follow-up, and 34 women in the self-management group crossed over to clinic-based care. Women in the self-management group reported fewer complications than women in the clinic-based care group. Experience of complications led to a greater likelihood of women discontinuing pessary use. Conclusions Implications for health care Healthcare professionals and policy-makers can be confident that in offering self-management as an option to women who use a vaginal pessary to manage pelvic organ prolapse they are offering an acceptable intervention that will not make women’s quality of life better or worse than clinic-based care. Self-management will, however, reduce the pessary-related complications that women experience and will cost the NHS less to deliver than standard clinic-based care models. Self-management of vaginal pessaries should be offered as part of NHS services from the outset of pessary care and as part of routine, ongoing care. In offering self-management to women, healthcare professionals should explain the lower complication rates experienced by women who self-manage and the possible mechanisms that may lead to that reduction (such as women’s confidence in removing the pessary when experiencing discomfort). Healthcare professionals who deliver self-management training may wish to add further information about options for pessary removal into that training, as women found pessary removal more difficult than pessary insertion. Recommendations for research (in priority order) Future research is needed to identify constructs that are important to women in measuring their prolapse-specific quality of life. This may necessitate the generation of a new measure that has greater sensitivity to quality-of-life constructs beyond the symptomatic changes linked to the pessary itself. Future trials of self-management should test the effectiveness of self-management with a wide range of ethnic groups and with women of different abilities to assess its effectiveness in these populations. This may include the testing of devices that support pessary removal or insertion. Future research is needed that focuses on self-management follow-up. For example, can follow-up be women-initiated, or does it need to be planned at specific intervals? Future research on pessary self-management is needed to look at possible links between pessary continuation and complications, including which specific complications are more likely to lead to discontinuation. Study registration This study is registered as ISRCTN62510577. Funding This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 16/82/01) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 23. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Background We assessed whether a sustained period of intensive glucose control with hybrid closed-loop for 12 months following diagnosis of type 1 diabetes in children and adolescents can preserve C-peptide secretion compared to standard insulin therapy. Methods In an open-label, multicentre, randomised, parallel trial, youth aged 10–16.9 years were randomised within 21 days of type 1 diabetes diagnosis to hybrid closed-loop or standard insulin therapy (control). Primary end point was the difference in mixed-meal C-peptide area under the curve 12 months post diagnosis. Key secondary end points included time spent in target glucose range, glycated haemoglobin and time spent below target glucose range at 12 months. Analysis was by intention to treat. The Closed Loop from Onset in Type 1 Diabetes consortium secured external funding for participants to continue on beyond 12 months, but the funding by National Institute for Health and Care Research and the results reported here refer only to the 12 months follow-up. Results We randomised 97 participants (mean ± standard deviation age 12 ± 2 years), 51 to closed-loop and 46 to control therapy. There was no difference in C-peptide area under the curve at 12 months between groups [geometric mean (interquartile range) closed-loop (n = 46): 0.35 pmol/ml (0.16, 0.49) vs. control (n = 37): 0.46 pmol/ml (0.22, 0.69); mean adjusted difference –0.06 (95% confidence interval –0.14 to 0.03); p = 0.19]. The proportion of time in target range 3.9–10.0 mmol/l based on 14-day masked LibrePro (Abbott Diabetes Care, Maidenhead, UK) sensor glucose data at 12 months was 10 percentage points (95% confidence interval 2 to 17) higher in the closed-loop group (64 ± 14%) compared to control group (54 ± 23%). Arithmetic mean glycated haemoglobin A1c was lower in the closed-loop group by 4 mmol/mol (0.4%) [95% confidence interval 0 to 8 mmol/mol (0.0% to 0.7%)] at 12 months. The mean difference in time spent 10.0 mmol/l was 11 percentage points (95% CI 3 to 19 percentage points) lower in the CL group compared to the control group at 12 months. Glucose variability measured by standard deviation (SD) was similar between CL and control groups, while coefficient of variation of glucose was 4 percentage points higher in the CL group at 12 months (95% CI 1 to 8 percentage points). The primary end point was similar in a per-protocol analysis using data from randomised participants in the CL group with at least 60% CL use and those in the control group who did not start insulin pump therapy. Total daily insulin dose was similar between treatment groups, but there was a greater proportion of basal insulin (mean ± SD closed-loop 0.52 ± 0.31 U/kg/day, control 0.37 ± 0.26 U/kg/day) to bolus insulin (mean ± SD closed-loop 0.44 ± 0.22 U/kg/day, control 0.46 ± 0.23 U/kg/day) in the CL group at 12 months. Blood pressure, lipid profile and BMI percentile were similar between treatment groups. In the CL group, median CL use was 66% (IQR 44–80) over the 12-month period. In the control group, 10% of participants (n = 4) were using insulin pump therapy and 57% (n = 21) were using a flash or real-time continuous glucose sensor at 12 months post diagnosis. Three severe hypoglycaemic events occurred in the CL group (two participants), and one in the control group; one DKA occurred in the CL group and none in the control group. The number of other AEs (CL group 34, control group 37) and SAEs (CL group 2, control group 4) was similar between groups. Responses to the Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory (PedsQL), hypoglycaemia fear survey (HFS), problem areas in diabetes (PAID) and Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaires (SDQs) were similar between treatment groups in both children and parents at 12 months. Scores for the INSPIRE (INsulin Dosing Systems: Perceptions, Ideas, Reflections and Expectations) questionnaire were high in children, teenagers and parents, suggesting positive expectancies regarding automated insulin delivery in this population. In-depth interviews of 18 youths and 21 parents with ≥ 12 months’ experience of using CL technology were undertaken. Interviews explored the impact of using CL systems on diabetes management practices and everyday family life. As reported by Lawton et al. Participants reported very few disruptions to their lives when using a closed-loop system. Reports of family conflict were minimal as the closed-loop enabled dietary flexibility and glucose levels to be checked effortlessly. Adolescents described doing ‘normal’ activities without worrying about high or low glucose, and parents reported allowing them to do so unsupervised because the closed-loop would regulate their glucose and keep them safe. Some adolescents expressed concerns about the visibility of components and, to avoid stigma, described curtailing activities such as swimming. Participants described how the closed-loop enabled adolescents to be in control of, or create distance from, their diabetes. Lawton J, Kimbell B, Rankin D, Ashcroft NL, Varghese L, Allen JM, et al.; CLOuD Consortium. Health professionals’ views about who would benefit from using a closed-loop system: a qualitative study. Diabet Med: J Br Diabet Assoc 2020;37(6):1030–7. Interviews of multidisciplinary healthcare professionals (n = 22) providing support to trial participants explored the benefits, issues and challenges arising from introducing and using CL systems to support diabetes self-management. Lawton et al. reported that interviewees described how, compared with other insulin regimens, teaching and supporting individuals to use a closed-loop system could be initially more time-consuming. However, they also noted that after an initial adjustment period, users had less need for initiating contact with the clinical team compared with people using pumps or multiple daily injections. Interviewees highlighted how a lessened need for ad hoc clinical input could result in new challenges; specifically, they had fewer opportunities to reinforce users’ diabetes knowledge and skills and detect potential psychosocial problems. Lawton et al. (2020) We explored health professionals’ views about who would benefit from using a CL system. Interviewees described holding strong assumptions about the types of people who would use the technology effectively prior to the trial. Interviewees described changing their views as a result of observing individuals engaging with the CL system in ways they had not anticipated. This included educated, technologically competent individuals who over-interacted with the system in ways which could compromise glycaemic control. Other individuals, who health professionals assumed would struggle to understand and use the technology, were reported to have benefited from it because they stood back and allowed the system to operate without interference. Interviewees concluded that individual, family and psychological attributes cannot be used as pre-selection criteria and ideally all individuals should be given the chance to try the technology. Conclusions The CLOuD study demonstrates that CL glucose control over a period of 12 months does not slow the decline in C-peptide secretion in children and adolescents with new-onset type 1 diabetes. Mean time in range was 10 percentage points higher and mean HbA1c was 0.4% (4 mmol/mol) lower in the CL group compared with the control group at 12 months, but these end points did not reach the pre-specified significance thresholds and it is possible that a greater improvement in glucose control with attainment of normoglycaemia could prevent the decline in C-peptide secretion. Further work may be needed to definitively rule out a role of glycaemic burden in the decline of C-peptide secretion. Total daily exogenous insulin requirements, a surrogate marker of residual insulin secretion, were similar between groups at all time points after diagnosis. This comparison may be hampered by any between-group differences in glycaemic control. It is likely that factors other than glycaemic control, such as autoimmune response, determine the rate of C-peptide decline following diagnosis of type 1 diabetes. It is possible that other factors act in concert with dysglycaemia on C-peptide secretion. The present study demonstrates that hybrid CL is effective in new-onset type 1 diabetes in youth and can safely accommodate the variability in exogenous insulin requirements which occur with beta-cell recovery post diagnosis. Glycaemic control was sustained over 12 months in the CL group, whereas glycaemic control started to deteriorate in the control group at 6 to 9 months after diagnosis. At 12 months post diagnosis, only 56% of youth in the control group (78% in the CL group) were able to achieve a HbA1c of

Background There are data suggesting that intravenous immunoglobulin treatment has some benefit for certain forms of encephalitis but robust evidence from large randomised controlled trials in children with all-cause encephalitis is lacking. Objective To evaluate whether intravenous immunoglobulin treatment improves neurological outcomes in childhood encephalitis when given early in the illness. Design Phase 3b, investigator-initiated, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of intravenous immunoglobulin for the treatment of encephalitis in children. Setting Twenty-one NHS Hospitals in the UK. Participants Children aged 6 months to 16 years with a diagnosis of acute or sub-acute encephalitis. Intervention Two doses (1 g/kg/dose) of either intravenous immunoglobulin or matching placebo, given 24–36 hours apart, in addition to standard treatment. Main outcome measure Participants were followed up for 12 months (+/– 4 weeks) after randomisation. The primary outcome measure was a ‘good recovery’ defined as a score of ≤ 2 on the Paediatric Glasgow Outcome Score Extended at 12 months after randomisation. Secondary outcomes The secondary outcomes were clinical, neurological, neuroimaging and neuropsychological results, identification of the proportion of children with immune-mediated encephalitis, and intravenous immunoglobulin safety data. Results We planned to recruit 308 children over a 42-month period. After enrolment of 18 participants (8 male; 44%) over 21 months (from December 2015 to September 2017), funding was withdrawn due to slow recruitment and the study was terminated. Ten participants were randomised to the intravenous immunoglobulin group, and eight to the placebo group, and all 18 participants were included in the analysis. At 12 months after randomisation, 9 participants [50%; intravenous immunoglobulin n = 5 (50%), placebo n = 4 (50%)] made good recovery and 5 participants [28%; intravenous immunoglobulin n = 3 (30%), placebo n = 2 (25%)] made a poor recovery. Three participants in the placebo group (43%) experienced a total of 10 serious adverse events compared with none in the intravenous immunoglobulin group but none of the adverse events were judged to be related to the study treatment. No deaths occurred during the study period. Conclusion ImmunoglobuliN in the Treatment of Encephalitis (IgNiTE) was halted prematurely due to slow recruitment. Given the small sample size, the study was underpowered to evaluate the effect of intravenous immunoglobulin when compared with placebo in childhood encephalitis. The study findings, albeit from a small sample size, support existing evidence that encephalitis results in poor neurological outcomes for many children. Lessons learned from the ImmunoglobuliN in the Treatment of Encephalitis trial would be valuable for the success of future trials set up to address the efficacy of early treatment with intravenous immunoglobulin in all-cause encephalitis in children. Study limitations and future work The study was underpowered to evaluate the efficacy of intravenous immunoglobulin in the treatment of childhood encephalitis due to the small sample size achieved. Future trials should seek to address this important question. Trial registration This trial is registered as Clinical Trials.gov (NCT02308982) and ISRCTN15791925. Funding This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation (EME) programme (NIHR award ref: 12/212/15) and is published in full in Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation; Vol. 11, No. 6. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information. Plain language summary Encephalitis (inflammation of the brain) is a serious but rare condition affecting approximately 5 in 100,000 children in England. Encephalitis can have a big impact on affected children and their families. Approximately 12 out of 100 affected children will die and half of those that survive experience varying difficulties in the long term; these might include problems with memory, physical disabilities, seizures and changes in how they think and behave. There is some evidence that a treatment called intravenous immunoglobulin may benefit people affected by encephalitis. Intravenous immunoglobulin contains antibodies obtained from blood donations by different people, which is used to treat some types of inflammation. However, there have been no research studies investigating the effect of intravenous immunoglobulin when used in large numbers of children with all types of encephalitis. Furthermore, although intravenous immunoglobulin is sometimes used to treat children with encephalitis, it is often given after other treatments have been unsuccessful. Outcomes from encephalitis are determined largely by the amount of brain inflammation; it would therefore seem logical that giving a treatment early in the illness to limit the inflammation would be beneficial. In the ImmunoglobuliN in the Treatment of Encephalitis study, we aimed to find out whether giving intravenous immunoglobulin to children with encephalitis early in the illness can help them get better more quickly and reduce the difficulties they experience later on. Half of the children in the trial received intravenous immunoglobulin and the other half received an inactive medicine, known as placebo, in addition to the normal care they would receive in a hospital. We aimed to compare the recovery and outcomes between children in these two groups. This trial was stopped early due to withdrawal of funding, as fewer children than expected were enrolled into the study. Too few children were enrolled for us to be sure whether intravenous immunoglobulin benefits children with encephalitis. However, the trial findings highlight the impact of encephalitis on affected children, with around half of children demonstrating ongoing difficulties 1 year after the illness. Scientific summary Background There is significant mortality and morbidity from encephalitis in children despite the current standard of care. Thus, strategies to improve outcomes in patients with encephalitis are urgently required. Theoretical and empirical evidence suggest a beneficial role of intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) for viral and auto-immune forms of encephalitis. Therefore, we set up a prospective randomised controlled trial (RCT) to ascertain the efficacy of early IVIG treatment for all-cause encephalitis in children. In the study, children with encephalitis were randomised to receive two doses of either IVIG or placebo within five working days from the suspicion of an encephalitis diagnosis, in addition to normal standard of care. They were then followed up for 12 months after randomisation. We hypothesised that IVIG could have therapeutic benefit for children with encephalitis when administered early in the illness. Objectives The primary objective was to evaluate the efficacy of early IVIG treatment in childhood encephalitis. This was assessed by comparing the proportion of children in the 2 treatment groups who made good recovery, assessed using the paediatric version of the Glasgow outcome score extended, at 12 months after randomisation. The secondary objectives were to: (1) compare clinical, neurological, neuroimaging and neuropsychological outcomes between the treatment groups, (2) evaluate the proportion of participants with autoimmune encephalitis and (3) confirm the safety of IVIG. Methods Trial design This was a phase 3b multicentre, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial to evaluate the early use IVIG in childhood encephalitis. Setting Participants were recruited from 21 NHS Hospitals in the UK. Participants Inclusion criteria Participants were eligible if they were aged between 6 weeks and 16 years they met the case definition for possible encephalitis based on the International Encephalitis Consensus parents/guardians provided written informed consent, or assent if appropriate. Exclusion criteria The exclusion criteria included: (1) a high clinical suspicion of bacterial meningitis, (2) prior receipt of IVIG during the admission or known contraindication to IVIG, (3) traumatic brain injury, (4) history of metabolic encephalopathy, stroke, toxic or hypertensive encephalopathy, (5) pre-existing demyelinating disorder, (6) significant renal impairment, (7) hypercoagulable state, (8) hyperprolinaemia, (9) participation in another research trial involving an immunomodulatory treatment, (10) known to be pregnant, (11) any significant disease or clinical research that would impact on participation, or interfere with compliance with study requirements. Randomisation Participants were randomly assigned 1 : 1 ratio to receive 2 doses (1 g/kg/dose) of either IVIG or matching placebo, in addition to standard care. Randomisation was stratified by age and receipt of steroid treatment. Interventions Two doses of 1 g/kg/dose of either IVIG or a matching volume of placebo were given 24–36 hours apart, with the first dose administered as soon as possible after enrolment and within five working days from the suspicion of an encephalitis diagnosis. The active treatment (IVIG) used in the study was Privigen (100 mg/ml solution), manufactured and provided by CSL Behring. The placebo was a mixture of 0.9% saline + 0.1% human albumin solution, manufactured at the Royal Broadgreen and Liverpool Aseptic Production Unit, Liverpool, UK, under current good manufacturing practice conditions and its Manufacturer’s Importer’s Authorisation licence. The addition of albumin to saline was necessary to make the placebo visually identical to IVIG. Blinding Participants, treating clinicians, parents/guardians and outcome assessors were blinded to the allocated treatment. Primary outcome The primary outcome was good recovery (i.e. score of ≤2) on the paediatric version of the Glasgow Outcome Score-Extended (GOS-E Peds) at 12 months after randomisation. Secondary outcomes Clinical, neurological and neuropsychological outcomes Multiple clinical and neurological measures were collected during the hospital admission, at 4–8 weeks after discharge from acute care, and at 6 and 12 months after randomisation. A blinded neuropsychologist assessment of cognitive function was carried out at 12 months after randomisation. Radiological outcomes Brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) findings at 6 months after randomisation were compared with imaging results obtained during the acute illness. Safety data Safety and adverse events (AEs) data were collected until 12 months after randomisation. Identification of immune-mediated encephalitis Presence of specific auto-antibodies in serum was assessed. Statistical methods The analyses were performed on the intention-to-treat population; this included all participants who were randomised, irrespective of study treatment received. In the analysis of the AEs, all participants who received study treatment were included. Since 20% of participants were recruited before the trial was halted, all analyses are descriptive. Results Recruitment took place between 23 December 2015 and 26 September 2017. Recruitment was paused in September 2017 following withdrawal of funding due to slower than anticipated recruitment. Despite strategies implemented to improve recruitment, funding was not reinstated. Attempts at securing alternative funding were unsuccessful; therefore, the trial was closed on 24 October 2017. Participants and demographics At the time of halting the study, 18 participants had been randomised (IVIG n = 10; placebo n = 8). One participant each from the IVIG and placebo groups were withdrawn from the study before receipt of study treatment and one participant in the placebo arm refused a second dose of study treatment. Therefore 16 participants (IVIG n = 9; placebo n = 7) received at least one dose of the study treatment and 15 participants (IVIG n = 9, placebo n = 6) received two full doses of the study treatment. One participant in the placebo group was lost to follow up after the 6 months visit and 1 participant in the IVIG group withdrew consent prior to the visit 12 months after randomisation. The median age at randomisation was 4.09 years [interquartile range (IQR) = 2.0–11.8], 44% were male and 89% were of white ethnicity. Baseline characteristics were well matched across treatment arms. Primary outcome At 12 months after randomisation, 9 participants [50%; IVIG n = 5 (50%); placebo n = 4 (50%)] made a good recovery (score ≤2 on the GOS-E Peds) and 5 participants [28%; IVIG n = 3 (30%), placebo n = 2 (25%)] made a poor recovery (score > 2). Four participants (22%; IVIG n = 2 (20%), placebo n = 2 (25%)] did not undergo a GOS-E Peds assessment at 12 months after randomisation. Secondary outcomes Inpatient data Ten participants [56%; IVIG n = 5 (50%), placebo = 5 (63%)] were admitted to intensive care, and nine of these [90%; IVIG n = 4 (80%), placebo n = 5(100%)] required invasive ventilation, for a median duration of two days (IQR 2.0–3.0). The median length of stay on intensive care was 4.5 days (3.0–6.8) and the overall median length of hospitalisation for acute care was 11 days (7.8–19.5). Epilepsy diagnosis Three participants [17%; IVIG n = 1 (10%), placebo n = 2 (25%)] had a new diagnosis of epilepsy during the study period. Five participants [28%; IVIG n = 2 (20%), placebo n = 3 (38%)] had incomplete data for this outcome. Glasgow Outcome Score-Extended-Peds at 6 months after randomisation Eight participants [44%; IVIG n = 4 (40%), placebo n = 4 (50%)] made a good recovery at 6 months after randomisation, whereas seven participants [39%; IVIG n = 4 (50%), placebo n = 3 (38%)] made a poor recovery. Three participants [17%; IVIG n = 2 (20%), placebo n = 1 (13%)] did not undergo a GOS-E Peds assessment at 6 months after randomisation. Liverpool outcome score At 4–8 weeks after discharge from acute care, 5 participants [28%; IVIG n = 3 (30%), placebo n = 2 (25%)] made a full recovery [defined as a Liverpool Outcome Score (LOS) of >4], whereas 10 participants [56%; IVIG n = 5 (50%), placebo n = 5 (63%)] had minor to severe sequelae. Three participants [17%; IVIG n = 2 (20%); placebo n = 1 (13%)] did not have LOS data collected at this timepoint. At 12 months after randomisation, six participants [33%; IVIG n = 4 (40%), placebo n = 2 (25%)] made full recovery on the LOS assessment, while 8 participants [44%; IVIG n = 4 (40%), placebo n = 4 (50%)] reported minor to severe sequelae. Four participants [22%; IVIG n = 2 (20%); placebo n = 2 (25%)] did not have LOS data collected at this timepoint. Paediatric quality of life assessment Paediatric quality of life scores were available for seven participants [39%; IVIG n = 5 (50%), placebo n = 2 (25%)] at 4–8 weeks after discharge from acute care and for eight participants [44%; IVIG n = 6 (60%), placebo n = 2 (25%)] at 12 months post randomisation. At 4–8 weeks after discharge from acute care, the mean PedsQL score was 77.9 (standard deviation, SD, 11.10) and 56.5 (SD 7.8) for the IVIG and placebo group, respectively. At 12 months, mean PedsQL scores were 79.9 (SD 21.6) and 63.7 (SD 30.1) for the IVIG and placebo groups, respectively. Gross motor function classification system At 4–8 weeks after discharge from acute care, seven participants [39%; IVIG n = 5 (50%); placebo n = 2 (25%)] had mild impairment of gross motor functioning. These data were not available for 11 participants [61%; IVIG n = 5 (50%), placebo n = 6 (75%)] at this timepoint. At 12 months after randomisation, eight participants [44%; IVIG n = 6 (60%); placebo n = 2 (25%)] experienced mild or severe impairment of gross motor function. These data were not available for ten participants [56%; IVIG n = 4 (40%), placebo n = 6 (75%)] at this timepoint. Strengths and difficulties assessment Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) results were available for seven participants (IVIG n = 5, placebo n = 2) at 4–8 weeks after discharge from acute care and eight participants (IVIG n = 6, placebo n = 2) at 12 months after randomisation. At 4–8 weeks after discharge from acute care, five participants [28%; IVIG n = 4 (40%); placebo n = 1 (13%)] had a close to average SDQ score, one participant [6%, IVIG n = 1 (10%), placebo n = 0] had a slightly raised SDQ score and one participant [6%, IVIG n = 0, placebo n = 1 (13%)] had a very high SDQ score. At 12 months after randomisation, the same number of participants had a close to average score and slightly raised score, but two participants [11%; IVIG n = 1 (10%), placebo n = 1 (13%)] had a very high SDQ score. Adaptive Behaviors Assessment System – second edition At 4–8 weeks after discharge from acute care, five participants [28%; IVIG n = 4 (40%), placebo n = 1 (13%)] had an Adaptive Behaviors Assessment System-second edition (ABAS-II) score that was either similar or higher than the average score of the normative population. At the same time point, three participants [17%; IVIG n = 2 (20%), placebo n = 1 (13%)] had a score that was lower than the average score. Ten participants [56%; IVIG n = 4 (40%), placebo n = 6 (75%)] did not have ABAS-II assessment at this timepoint. At 12 months after randomisation, the same number of participants had a score that was below the average, but four participants [22%; IVIG n = 3 (30%), placebo n = 1 (13%)] had a score that was either similar or higher than the average score, and 11 participants [61%; IVIG n = 5 (50%), placebo n = 6 (75%)] did not have ABAS-II assessment at this timepoint. Neuropsychology assessment Thirteen participants (72%; IVIG n = 8 (80%); placebo n = 5 (63%)] had blinded neuropsychology assessment at 12 months after randomisation; four [30%; IVIG n = 2 (25%), placebo n = 2 (40%)] of these participants were unable to complete the full battery of assessments due to attention or behavioural needs. Five participants [28%; IVIG n = 2 (20%), placebo n = 3 (38%)] did not undergo neuropsychology assessment. Five participants [28%; IVIG n = 4 (40%), placebo n = 1 (13%)] had a score of ≥85 (indicating normal development) for Full-Scale IQ, six [33%; IVIG n = 4 (40%); placebo n = 2 (25%)] for Verbal Comprehension Index (VCI), five [28%; IVIG n = 4 (40%), placebo n = 1 (13%)] for visual spatial; four [22%; IVIG n = 4 (40%), placebo n = 0 (0%)] for working memory index (WMI); and four [22%; IVIG n = 3 (30%); placebo n = 1 (13%)] for Perceptual Reasoning Index (PRI). Two participants (one in each treatment arm) were assessed using the Bayley scale of infant and toddler development, one participant (IVIG arm) had severe neurodevelopmental impairment while the other (placebo arm) had a normal neurodevelopmental outcome. Neuroimaging Nineteen acute neuroimaging scans were available for 13 participants. Five scans (for five unique participants) had abnormal findings; all of these were MRI scans. Four of the abnormal scans showed bilateral lesions. There were nine follow-up scans for eight unique participants of which six scans (for five unique participants) were normal and unchanged from the acute scan. Three follow-up scans (for three unique participants) had abnormal findings; two of these were unchanged from the acute scans and an acute scan was not available for comparison one participant. Autoantibody testing Twelve participants had autoantibody testing. One participant (placebo n = 1) was positive for LGI1 antibodies, and one participant (placebo n = 1) was positive for myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein (MOG) antibodies. Two additional participants (IVIG n = 2) were positive for IgG to live neurons, indicating the presence of IgG antibodies binding to neurons, but negative for antibodies to the specific antigens tested for in the study. Safety reporting One participant in the IVIG group reported an AE of special interest; the participant developed a fever during IVIG infusion; however, this was judged to be unrelated to the study treatment. Ten serious AEs occurred in three participants in the placebo group and none in the IVIG group. None of the serious adverse events (SAEs) were judged to be related to the study treatment. No deaths occurred during the study period. Conclusions ImmunoglobuliN in the Treatment of Encephalitis (IgNiTE) was the first RCT to prospectively evaluate the efficacy of IVIG in childhood encephalitis. It was anticipated that data from IgNiTE would provide definitive evidence on which to base the management of children with encephalitis in the UK and worldwide. However, due to slow recruitment, the trial was terminated early. Therefore, the trial did not reach its pre-determined sample size and was underpowered, making it impossible to reach a conclusion on the role of IVIG in treatment of childhood encephalitis. Nonetheless, IgNiTE has highlighted several key learning points. Firstly, IgNiTE has demonstrated the feasibility of setting up a large multi-centre trial efficacy trial in a cohort of children with a rare condition such as encephalitis. Secondly, data from IgNiTE, albeit derived from a small sample size, suggest the safety of IVIG and provide some insight into the burden that encephalitis places on children and the NHS. Over half of the study participants were admitted to the intensive care unit with 90% of those admitted requiring invasive ventilation, with a prolonged overall length of hospitalisation. In addition, a notable proportion of children experienced some degree of disability at follow-up, highlighting the need to prioritise studies aimed at identifying strategies to alleviate the burden from this rare but debilitating disease. For future studies aimed at addressing the efficacy of early IVIG treatment in childhood encephalitis, consideration should be given to practical challenges with setting up RCTs for rare diseases. These include the necessity to recruit from multiple sites to achieve the sample size, the importance of clinical equipoise amongst treating clinicians, and the trade-off between having a stringent but robust set of entry criteria and the impact of this on recruitment. Trial registration This trial is registered as Clinical Trials.gov (NCT02308982) and ISRCTN15791925. Funding This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation (EME) programme (NIHR award ref: 12/212/15) and is published in full in Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation; Vol. 11, No. 6. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Background Lateral compression type-1 pelvic fractures are a common fragility fracture in older adults. Patients who do not mobilise due to ongoing pain are at greater risk of immobility-related complications. Standard treatment in the United Kingdom is provision of pain relief and early mobilisation, unlike fragility hip fractures, which are usually treated surgically based on evidence that early surgery is associated with better outcomes. Currently there is no evidence on whether patients with lateral compression type-1 fragility fractures would have a better recovery with surgery than non-surgical management. Objectives To assess the clinical and cost effectiveness of surgical fixation with internal fixation device compared to non-surgical management of lateral compression type-1 fragility fractures in older adults. Design Pragmatic, randomised controlled superiority trial, with 12-month internal pilot; target sample size was 600 participants. Participants were randomised between surgical and non-surgical management (1 : 1 allocation ratio). An economic evaluation was planned. Setting UK Major Trauma Centres. Participants Patients aged 60 years or older with a lateral compression type-1 pelvic fracture, arising from a low-energy fall and unable to mobilise independently to a distance of 3 m and back due to pelvic pain 72 hours after injury. Interventions Internal fixation device surgical fixation and non-surgical management. Participants, surgeons and outcome assessors were not blinded to treatment allocation. Main outcome measures Primary outcome – average patient health-related quality of life, over 6 months, assessed by the EuroQol-5 Dimensions, five-level version utility score. Secondary outcomes (over the 6 months following injury) – self-rated health, physical function, mental health, pain, delirium, displacement of pelvis, mortality, complications and adverse events, and resource use data for the economic evaluation. Results The trial closed early, at the end of the internal pilot, due to low recruitment. The internal pilot was undertaken in two separate phases because of a pause in recruitment due to the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. The planned statistical and health economic analyses were not conducted. Outcome data were summarised descriptively. Eleven sites opened for recruitment for a combined total of 92 months. Three-hundred and sixteen patients were assessed for eligibility, of whom 43 were eligible (13.6%). The main reason for ineligibility was that the patient was able to mobilise independently to 3 m and back (n = 161). Of the 43 eligible participants, 36 (83.7%) were approached for consent, of whom 11 (30.6%) provided consent. The most common reason for eligible patients not consenting to take part was that they were unwilling to be randomised to a treatment (n = 10). There were 11 participants, 5 randomised to surgical management with internal fixation device and 6 to non-surgical management. The average age of participants was 83.0 years (interquartile range 76.0, 89.0) and the EuroQol-5 Dimensions, five-level version utility score at 6 months post randomisation (n = 8) was 0.32 (standard deviation 0.37). A limitation of the trial was that study objectives were not addressed due to poor recruitment. Conclusions It was not feasible to recruit to this trial in the current context. Further research to understand the treatment and recovery pathways of this group of patients, along with their outcomes, would be needed prior to undertaking a future trial. Future work Exploration of equipoise across different healthcare professional groups. Investigate longer-term patient outcomes. Trial registration This trial is registered as ISRCTN16478561. Funding This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 16/167/57) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 15. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information. Plain language summary When older adults with weak bones fall onto their side, they can fracture the pelvis in a certain way known as a ‘lateral compression type-1 fracture’; this summary will use ‘pelvic fracture’. Pelvic fractures can heal without surgery; patients are offered pain relief and encouraged to move as much as they can after the injury. Pelvic fractures can be painful, and some people are not able to get up and walk for weeks. These fractures can cause health problems such as chest infections, urinary tract infections, pressure sores and blood clots. To avoid these problems, we are trying to find treatments to help people recover sooner. Pelvic surgeons think patients may benefit from surgery with an internal fixation device (a bar and screws) to stabilise the pelvis; however, there can be risks and complications with any surgery. This study aimed to find out which treatment is better for patients and better value for money for the National Health Service. This required 600 people aged over 60, in hospital with a pelvic fracture and having difficulty walking to take part. Three hundred would receive surgery and 300 would receive non-surgical treatment. Over 6 months, participants would complete questionnaires, a walking assessment and have X-rays to check healing. The trial had a 12-month run-in period to see if enough people would take part. The trial closed early as we were unable to recruit sufficient people into the study. Fewer older patients with pelvic fractures were identified than expected, 51% were able to walk after a few days and therefore were not eligible to be included in the study. Of the patients, 13.6% were eligible and 30.6% of those consented to take part. Restrictions on visitors during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic made it difficult to discuss the study with patients’ families and fewer patients were admitted to hospital where the study was taking place. The research question could not be answered by this study at the present time. Scientific summary Background Lateral compression type-1 (LC-1) pelvic fractures are a common fragility fracture in older adults. Older patients who do not get back walking following an LC-1 fracture due to ongoing pain are at greater risk of immobility-related complications. In the UK, standard treatment for LC-1 fragility fracture is to ‘mobilise as pain allows’, involving prescribing pain relief, getting patients up within a few days of injury with physiotherapy input and encouraging them to mobilise with an assistive device until the fracture heals. This is unlike fragility hip fractures (fractures involving the upper end of the femur) where there is evidence that early surgery (within 1–2 days) is associated with reduced risk of death and pressure sores and these fractures are usually treated surgically. Despite LC-1 fractures being similarly disabling for some patients in terms of pain and immobility and occurring in the same patient group as hip fractures, to date, it has not been shown whether elderly patients with LC-1 fractures would have a better recovery with surgery than non-surgical management. Objectives To assess the clinical and cost effectiveness of surgical fixation with internal fixation device (INFIX) compared to non-surgical management of LC-1 fragility fractures in older adults (L1FE trial): undertake a 12-month internal pilot to obtain robust estimates of recruitment and confirm trial feasibility undertake a parallel group multicentre randomised controlled trial (RCT) to assess the effectiveness of surgical fixation with INFIX versus non-surgical management of LC-1 fragility fractures in older adults undertake an economic evaluation to compare the cost effectiveness of surgical fixation compared to non-surgical management, to determine the most efficient provision of future care and to describe the resource impact on the NHS for the two treatment options undertake a long-term review of patient well-being [EuroQol-5 Dimensions, five-level version (EQ-5D-5L) and mortality] 12 months after entering the trial. Design Pragmatic, randomised controlled superiority trial, with 12-month internal pilot to assess recruitment assumptions, and an economic evaluation. Participants were randomised between INFIX surgical fixation and non-surgical management of LC-1 pelvic fracture with a 1 : 1 allocation ratio. The target sample size was 600 participants. For the internal pilot the target was to set up a minimum of 19 recruitment sites and randomise 148 participants in order to meet the target sample size in the main trial. To progress to the main trial, an average recruitment rate of one participant per centre per month was required. Setting and participants Participants were recruited from Major Trauma Centres (MTCs) in the UK. Adults aged 60 years or older with an LC-1 pelvic fracture, arising from a low-energy fall from standing height or less, and unable to mobilise independently to a distance of around 3 m and back due to pelvic pain 72 hours after injury were eligible for inclusion. Interventions Internal fixation device surgical fixation and non-surgical management (both groups received pain relief and were seen by a physiotherapy team who worked to mobilise the patients as pain allowed). Internal fixation device surgery uses an INFIX to stabilise the pelvis. INFIX devices have screws that are secured into the pelvic bone, and these are connected by a metal bar across the front of the patient. The INFIX device sits entirely under the patient’s skin. Main outcome measures Primary outcome – average patient health-related quality of life, over 6 months, assessed by the patient-reported outcome measure, EQ-5D-5L utility score. Collected at baseline, 2 weeks, 6 weeks, 12 weeks and 6 months post-randomisation time points. Secondary outcomes – health-related quality of life using the EQ-5D-5L visual analogue scale (VAS); physical function using the eight-item Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Information System (PROMIS) lower extremity function (LEF) (mobility) – Short Form and Timed Up and Go (TUG) test; mental health using the PROMIS Scale v1.2 – Global Health Mental 2a subscale; pelvic pain using a VAS; delirium using the Abbreviated Mental Test Score (AMTS) and 4AT Rapid Assessment Test for Delirium; displacement of the pelvis based on a radiological assessment at the 12-week visit; mortality; complications and adverse events including lateral cutaneous nerve injury which was an adverse event of special interest (AESI); resource use; long-term review of patient well-being using the EQ-5D-5L and mortality at 12 months (optional follow-up for those recruited early in the trial). Information on resource use such as length of hospital stay, medication use, surgery details and details of rehabilitation therapy received was collected throughout the follow-up period to assess the impact on the NHS as part of the economic evaluation. Sample size Sample size was calculated based on the primary outcome, EQ-5D-5L. To be conservative, we took the lowest published estimate of the minimal clinically important differences (MCID) (0.074) with an estimated standard deviation (SD) of 0.25 (estimated from the 0.30 reported for the 3L version and adjusted down to account for the 5L version’s greater sensitivity). Based on these assumptions we would have needed to analyse 480 participants (240 per group) and, after accounting for loss to follow-up of 20%, we would have needed to recruit and randomise 600 participants for a study with 90% power (2p = 0.05). Randomisation Intervention allocation was assigned using an online data management system developed for the L1FE study by the software team at York Trials Unit (YTU). There was independent and concealed random allocation (1 : 1 ratio), using computer-generated random permuted blocks of random sizes (4, 6 and 8), stratified by centre, following confirmation of eligibility and written consent. Analysis The originally planned primary analysis was a mixed-effects linear regression model, with EQ-5D-5L scores at 2, 6 and 12 weeks and 6 months follow-up as the dependent variable, adjusting for baseline EQ-5D-5L, randomised group and other pertinent baseline characteristics as fixed effects. The plan was to control for potential clustering at hospital site level by including it in the model as a random effect and to account for the correlation of scores within patients over time by means of an appropriate covariance structure. Due to the small sample size and stopping at the end of the internal pilot, a descriptive analysis was undertaken with no formal hypothesis testing. All reported summary statistics are given at both a treatment group and overall level. The planned economic analysis was to examine the overall difference in EQ-5D-5L index scores between the two groups using regression methods, consistent with the model selected in the statistical analysis. The EQ-5D-5L health states were to be valued in accordance with National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidance. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were to be calculated by plotting the utility scores at each of the four time points and estimating the area under the curve and regression methods used to express the incremental cost per QALYs gained. Results were to be presented using incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves (CEACs). Results The trial closed early, at the end of the internal pilot due to low recruitment. The internal pilot took place in two separate phases (August 2019 to March 2020 and March 2021 to September 2021) because of a 1-year recruitment pause due to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Site set-up Eleven sites in England and Wales were opened during the first phase of the internal pilot. Ten of these re-opened following the study recruitment pause. A further 10 sites, including 3 in Scotland, were interested in participating and were in various stages of set-up prior to study closure. The 11 sites were open for a combined total of 92 months. Patient screening During the internal pilot, 316 patients were assessed for eligibility, of whom 43 were eligible (13.6%). The main reasons for ineligibility were: patient able to mobilise independently 3 m and back (n = 161), concomitant injury that impedes mobilisation (n = 57), surgery contraindicated (n = 40), patient did not have a low-energy LC-1 pelvic fracture (n = 38), unable to schedule surgery within 10 days of injury (n = 34), patient was under 60 years of age (n = 23) and/or the patient was non-ambulatory or required assistance prior to injury (n = 22). Recruitment, withdrawals and follow-up Of the 43 eligible participants, 36 (83.7%) were approached for consent, of whom 11 (30.6%) provided consent. Eleven (100%) of the consenting patients were randomised into the study. The most common reason for eligible patients not consenting to take part was that they were unwilling to be randomised to a treatment (n = 10). The average recruitment rate per site per month was 0.175, well below the target rate of one patient per site per month. Eleven patients were randomised, five to INFIX surgical fixation and six to non-surgical management. Three participants in the non-surgical management group were withdrawn from the study. One participant died, one participant lost capacity and their family member no longer wanted them to take part in the study and one participant had sight problems and considered themselves too frail to continue. Of the five participants randomised to surgical fixation, all received surgery and no one in the non-surgical management group received surgery. All participants in the surgical fixation group completed the 6-month questionnaires and the remaining participants in the non-surgical management group provided data at 6 months (3/6). The average age of participants was 83.0 years (interquartile range 76.0–89.0) and the EQ-5D-5L utility score at 6 months post randomisation (n = 8) was 0.32 (SD 0.37). Barriers to recruitment and actions taken There were multiple barriers to recruitment, which, combined with the impact of COVID-19 on the NHS, resulted in a very low recruitment rate. These included: Fewer patients than anticipated were screened and screening activity was variable across sites. Patients had multiple entry points to hospital for treatment with onward admissions to several possible departments (Geriatric ward, Orthopaedic ward, Medical ward or an Admissions unit). This made screening resource-intensive for the research teams at sites. This became particularly challenging following the recruitment pause, as recruiting staff at sites were not all back to full capacity. A substantial proportion of patients were able to mobilise by 72 hours post injury and therefore did not meet the eligibility criteria for the trial. There was also variation across sites in how the assessment of mobility was undertaken and the extent of assistance provided to patients. The COVID-19 pandemic led to a concerted focus on avoidance of hospital admissions where possible, thereby minimising hospital stays. Because the pre-trial standard care for LC-1 pelvic fragility fractures was non-surgical management, there were challenges in the delivery of the L1FE trial. Patients were increasingly being discharged before the 72-hour assessment to nursing homes, residences with care packages or rehabilitation hospitals and could not be screened for the trial. There was evidence of a lack of equipoise amongst both surgical and non-surgical healthcare professionals, with a preference for non-surgical management in some centres. For example, some surgeons felt that INFIX was not a good treatment for this patient cohort, or they felt that most patients could mobilise fairly quickly. The recruiting window was relatively small. There were 3 days before the initial approach was permitted, with the surgery required to take place before day 10 (but in reality, this was often shorter due to 1 day per week operating lists or no operating at weekends at some sites). Making a decision about participating in a trial where the interventions are very different in intensity and risks is potentially a daunting one for patients and their consultees (where patients lacked capacity). From the perspective of recruiting staff, the resulting consent process was experienced as time consuming, involving difficult conversations and a lot of back-and-forth, waiting for patients to discuss the trial with their relatives and/or surgeon, or for next of kin to do so. This was exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic. Where patients lacked capacity, discussions with consultees had to take place remotely and recruitment staff felt that it was more difficult to build rapport and trust. There was a perception amongst staff that patients’ next of kin were also reluctant to consent on behalf of the patient whom they were unable to see due to COVID-19 visiting restrictions, in order to have a better idea of how they were doing, or get a better sense of the study. We used multiple strategies to mitigate against the barriers identified. We used cross-site meetings with the aim of bringing together research staff at recruiting sites to discuss the challenges with recruitment experienced at each site, share knowledge and provide support from the central trial team. We obtained approval for changes to the protocol clarifying how the 72-hour mobility inclusion criterion was implemented. During the recruitment pause we developed new resources to support recruitment staff: a short video introduction to the trial that sites could share across departments; a narrated animation on identifying patients across departments; a video resource on how to undertake the 72-hour mobility assessment for the trial; a patient-facing consent video; and updated consent guidance. We obtained approval for the associate principal investigator (API) scheme to be extended to orthogeriatricians to increase their engagement with the study. The trial team including the chief investigator (CI), physiotherapist, orthogeriatrician and trial co-ordinators provided support to address issues at individual sites. With the input of our patient and public involvement (PPI) group, the patient information sheet (PIS) was also revised. Despite the efforts of the central trial team and recruiting teams at sites, the strategies did not sufficiently mitigate against the barriers. Conclusions It is not feasible to recruit to this trial in the current context. Further research to understand the treatment and recovery pathways of this group of patients, along with their outcomes, would be needed prior to undertaking a future trial. Trial registration This trial is registered as ISRCTN16478561. Funding This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 16/167/57) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 15. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Background Renin–angiotensin system inhibitors, both angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers, slow progression of mild and moderate chronic kidney disease. However, some evidence suggests that discontinuation of renin–angiotensin system inhibitors in patients with advanced chronic kidney disease might increase estimated glomerular filtration rate or slow its decline. Objective To test the hypothesis that stopping angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers, or a combination of both, compared with continuing these treatments, improves or stabilises kidney function in patients with progressive stages 4 or 5 chronic kidney disease based on assessment of kidney function using the modification of diet in renal disease four-variable estimated glomerular filtration rate at 3 years, follow-up. Setting Thirty-seven UK hospitals with kidney services. Design An investigator-led multicentre open-label, randomised controlled trial of 411 participants with advanced (stage 4 or 5) progressive chronic kidney disease. Participants Adult patients with advanced (estimated glomerular filtration rate < 30 ml/minute/1.73 m2) and progressive chronic kidney disease who were receiving either angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers, or a combination of both. Interventions Participants were randomised in a 1 : 1 ratio using a centralised internet-based system to either discontinue renin–angiotensin system inhibitors (n = 206) or continue renin–angiotensin system inhibitors (n = 205). Main outcome measures The primary outcome was the estimated glomerular filtration rate at 3 years; measurements of estimated glomerular filtration rate made after commencing kidney replacement therapy were excluded. Secondary outcomes included development of end-stage kidney disease or starting kidney replacement therapy, a composite of either a > 50% decline in estimated glomerular filtration rate or commencement of kidney replacement therapy (including end-stage kidney disease), cystatin C, hospitalisations, blood pressure, exercise capacity and quality of life. Cardiovascular events, death and safety were recorded. Results At 3 years, the least-squares mean (± standard error) estimated glomerular filtration rate was 12.6 ± 0.7 ml/minute/1.73 m2 in the discontinuation group and 13.3 ± 0.6 ml/minute/1.73 m2 in the continuation group [difference −0.7, 95% confidence interval (−2.5 to 1.0; p = 0.42)] with a negative value favouring the continuation group. The treatment effect did not differ (heterogeneity) when data were analysed by the pre-specified subgroups. End-stage kidney disease or kidney replacement therapy occurred in 128 (62%) and 115 (56%) participants randomised to the discontinue and continue renin–angiotensin system inhibitor groups, respectively (hazard ratio 1.28, 95% confidence interval 0.99 to 1.65). The numbers of cardiovascular events and deaths observed were similar for those randomised to discontinue (108 events and 20 deaths) or continue (88 events and 22 deaths) renin–angiotensin system inhibitors. Limitations Non-white ethnic backgrounds were poorly represented, limiting the generalisability of our findings. The open-label nature of the trial may have affected clinical care and subjective end points, such as quality of life and exercise capacity. We only included patients who were receiving renin–angiotensin system inhibitors at the time of randomisation, thus excluding those who had already discontinued these agents. Conclusions Discontinuing renin–angiotensin system inhibitors in advanced and progressive chronic kidney disease does not cause a clinically relevant change in estimated glomerular filtration rate or difference in its long-term decline. Future work Future work should focus on updating clinical guidelines. Further analyses, in addition to the prespecified analyses, may be undertaken if new estimated glomerular filtration rate equations are introduced into clinical practice. Subgroup analysis by kidney disease aetiology and gender may be undertaken to look for potential differences in outcome in specific groups. Trial registration This trial is registered as STOP ACEi EudraCT Number, 2013-003798-82; ISRCTN62869767. Funding This award was funded by the Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation (EME) programme (NIHR award ref: 11/30/07), a Medical Research Council (MRC) and National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) partnership. This is published in full in Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation; Vol. 11, No. 5. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information. Plain language summary Drugs called angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers, together known as renin–angiotensin system inhibitors, are used to treat high blood pressure, slow worsening kidney function and lower the risk of kidney failure (known as end-stage kidney disease which requires treatment with dialysis or kidney transplantation) in patients with early chronic kidney disease. However, we did not know if patients treated with renin–angiotensin system inhibitors and who have progressed to more advanced chronic kidney disease (stage 4 or 5) should stop or continue renin–angiotensin system inhibitors. To determine whether stopping renin–angiotensin system inhibitors in people with advanced chronic kidney disease leads to an improvement or stabilisation of kidney function required a study comparing the outcomes of people who had had these drugs stopped with a group who continued these drugs (the STOP-angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors trial). We recruited 411 participants with advanced chronic kidney disease who were receiving renin–angiotensin system inhibitors from 37 kidney units in the UK, and randomly (like flipping a coin) allocated them to either stop or continue renin–angiotensin system inhibitors. We then compared kidney function between the two groups at 3 years. We also assessed whether stopping or continuing renin–angiotensin system inhibitors had an influence on the development of end-stage kidney disease or need for kidney replacement therapy, the number of hospitalisations, blood pressure, quality of life and physical function. We collected data on safety outcomes including death and heart-related events (such as heart attacks). The results of the trial showed no difference in kidney function at 3 years. The number of participants requiring dialysis, or a kidney transplant was also similar, as was the quality of life and physical function between the groups. Deaths and the number of heart events were similar in both groups. This research suggests that there is no benefit in stopping renin–angiotensin system inhibitors in patients with advanced chronic kidney disease. Scientific summary Background Renin–angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitors, both angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEi) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB), slow the progression of mild and moderate chronic kidney disease (CKD). However, some evidence suggests that discontinuation of RAS inhibitors in patients with advanced CKD might increase estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) or slow its decline. Primary objective To test the hypothesis that discontinuing ACEi or ARB treatment, or a combination of both, compared with continuing on these treatments, improves or stabilises kidney function in patients with progressive stage 4 or stage 5 CKD based on assessment of kidney function using the modification of diet in renal disease (MDRD) four-variable eGFR at 3 years follow-up. Secondary objectives To test whether in each of the randomised groups. Clinical outcomes The number of participants starting kidney replacement therapy (KRT) (dialysis or transplantation) or sustaining a > 50% decline in eGFR differs. There is a difference in the time taken to reach end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) or need for KRT. Hospitalisation rates from any cause are different. Participant quality of life and well-being [measured using the kidney disease quality of life (KDQoL)-SF™ v1.3 questionnaire] differs. Participant physical function (measured using the 6-minute walk test) differs. Withdrawal of these treatments does not cause excess harm [e.g. increased cardiovascular (CV) events such as heart failure, hypertension, myocardial infarction, stroke] and is not associated with an increase in adverse effects. Participant survival in each group is similar. Blood pressure (BP) control is the same. Cystatin-C levels differ. Mechanistic outcomes There is a change in urine protein excretion [urinary protein-to-creatinine ratio (uPCR)]. Discontinuation of ACEi/ARB affects haemoglobin concentration. Discontinuation of ACEi/ARB affects the requirement for erythropoietin stimulating agents. Methods An investigator-initiated, multicentre, open-label randomised trial where people with advanced and progressive CKD (eGFR < 30 ml/minute/1.73 m2) were randomised to either discontinue or continue RAS inhibitors, and then followed up every 3 months for 3 years. Patients underwent screening at 39 centres in the UK. Adults (≥ 18 years of age) with stage 4 or stage 5 CKD (eGFR, < 30 ml/minute/1.73 m2 of body-surface area) were eligible to participate in the trial if they were not receiving dialysis and had not undergone kidney transplantation. All eligible patients were required to have had a decrease of more than 2 ml/minute/1.73 m2 per year in the eGFR during the previous 2 years and to have been receiving treatment with an ACEi, an ARB, or both for more than 6 months. We calculated the eGFR using the four-variable equation used in the MDRD study, as updated in 2005 (MDRD175). Exclusion criteria included uncontrolled hypertension or a history of myocardial infarction or stroke within the previous 3 months. All the patients provided written informed consent. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1 : 1 ratio to either discontinue or continue RAS inhibitors. Randomisation used a centralised internet-based system with minimisation to ensure balance between groups for the following variables: age (< 65 or ≥ 65 years), eGFR (< 15 or ≥ 15 ml/minute/1.73 m2), diabetes (type 1, type 2, or none), mean arterial pressure (< 100 or ≥ 100 mmHg) and proteinuria [protein-to-creatinine ratio (PCR), < 100 or ≥ 100 mg/mmol]. In the group that discontinued RAS inhibitor, any guideline-recommended antihypertensive agent other than a RAS inhibitor could be used to control BP. In the group that continued RAS inhibitors, the responsible clinician chose the agent and dose of the RAS inhibitor and could combine it with any other guideline-recommended antihypertensive agent. The primary outcome was the eGFR at 3 years as calculated according to the MDRD175 four-variable equation. Secondary outcome measures included the time until the development of ESKD or initiation of KRT; a composite of a decrease of more than 50% in the eGFR, the development of ESKD, or the initiation of KRT; hospitalisation for any cause; measures of cystatin C and BP; quality of life (as measured on the KDQoL 36-Item Short Form Survey, version 1.3); exercise capacity (as assessed by the 6-minute walk test); and CV events and death. At the time of this report, the transfer and processing of samples for cystatin C measurement had not yet occurred, so the results are not provided here. Secondary mechanistic outcomes included measures of haemoglobin and urinary protein excretion (PCR). The trial aimed to recruit 410 patients (205 patients in each trial group) which would provide 80% power to determine a minimum relevant between-group difference in the eGFR of 5 ml/minute/1.73 m2 (alpha level of 0.05), assuming an attrition rate of 20%. This difference represents an effect size of 0.31, with a standard deviation of 16 ml/minute/1.73 m2. The analyses were based on the intention-to-treat principle and were adjusted for the minimisation variables and baseline values. A repeated-measures, mixed-effects linear regression model was used to estimate the between-group difference in eGFR at 3 years. Any measurements of eGFR that were made after patients had initiated dialysis or undergone kidney transplantation were excluded from the primary analysis. To examine the effect of data that were not missing at random, we performed sensitivity analyses by fitting pattern-mixture and joint models for the primary outcome. We also repeated analyses for the primary outcome with the use of two other four-variable equations for the eGFR calculation: the Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration 2009 equation and the MDRD186 equation. Continuously distributed secondary outcomes, such as BP, were analysed using the same methods as per the primary analysis, but data were not censored at the time of initiation of KRT. Categorical (dichotomous) secondary outcomes were analysed with the use of a Poisson regression model with robust standard errors (SEs) to estimate the relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). A Cox proportional-hazards model was used to calculate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs for time-to-event outcomes, such as the development of ESKD or the initiation of KRT. Categorical safety outcome measures (i.e. hospitalisation and serious adverse events) were summarised as the percentage of patients with these events. Data collection for kidney outcomes did not distinguish between ESKD and kidney-replacement outcomes (i.e. both outcomes used the same end-point code), although investigators could note the specific outcome. Prespecified subgroup analyses were performed only for the primary outcome according to the minimisation variables. Time and subgroup were included in the model to allow for the possibility of differential changes over time within subgroups, time according to subgroup and the three-way interaction among the variables of treatment, time and subgroup. Although all data were included in the regression models for the subgroup analyses, only estimates of differences at 3 years are presented. All analyses were performed with the use of SAS software, version 9.4 (SAS Institute), and Stata software, version 17 (StataCorp). Results At 3 years, among the 411 patients who underwent randomisation, the least-squares mean (LS-Mean) (±SE) eGFR was 12.6 ± 0.7 ml/minute/1.73 m2 in the discontinuation group and 13.3 ± 0.6 ml/minute/1.73 m2 in the continuation group (difference −0.7, 95% (CI −2.5 to 1.0; p = 0.42) with a negative value favouring the continuation group. End-stage kidney disease or the initiation of KRT occurred in 128 patients (62%) in the discontinuation group and in 115 patients (56%) in the continuation group (HR 1.28, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.65). The number of patients with > 50% decline in eGFR or need to start KRT (including ESKD) was 140/206 (68%) in the discontinue RAS inhibitor group compared to 127/202 (63%) in the continue RAS inhibitor group; RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.22. The number of hospitalisations were similar between the groups; 414 in the stop RAS inhibitor group versus 413 in the continue RAS inhibitor group. The difference in LS-Mean at 3 years for systolic BP was 0 mmHg, 95% CI −4 to 5 mmHg. The results were similar for diastolic BP; 0 mmHg, 95% CI −2 to 3 mmHg. Adverse events were similar in both the discontinuation group and continuation group with respect to CV events (108 vs. 88) and deaths (20 vs. 22). Conclusions Our STOP-ACEi trial showed that discontinuing RAS inhibitors for patients with advanced and progressive CKD does not lead to a clinically relevant change in eGFR or difference in the rate of long-term decline in eGFR, overall or in pre-specified subgroups by age, severity of CKD, diabetes, proteinuria or BP. Numerically more patients who discontinued RAS inhibitors had progression to ESKD or need for KRT, so a larger trial might have shown an advantage to continuing with RAS inhibition. The rate of CV events and death was similar. Systolic and diastolic BP and proteinuria were greater over the first year of follow-up in those randomised to discontinue RAS inhibitors but there was little difference, thereafter, reflecting initiation of antihypertensive agents other than RAS inhibitors. No differences in quality of life or exercise capacity were observed for those who discontinued or continued RAS inhibitors. Our trial lacked sufficient power to investigate the effect of withdrawing RAS inhibitors on CV events or mortality. However, because our trial suggests that there is no advantage in discontinuing RAS inhibitors from the perspective of kidney function, there is little rationale to conduct a larger randomised trial to investigate CV safety. Future work Future work should initially focus on updating clinical guidelines in the UK and potentially worldwide. Further analyses, in addition to the prespecified analyses, may be undertaken if new eGFR equations are introduced into routine clinical practice such as the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence recommended removal of black ethnicity correction factor from the eGFR equation. Consideration of subgroup analysis by aetiology of kidney disease and gender will be considered to look for any potential differences in outcome in specific groups which might warrant future studies. Trial registration This trial is registered as STOP ACEi EudraCT Number, 2013-003798-82; ISTRCTN62869767. Funding This award was funded by the Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation (EME) programme (NIHR award ref: 11/30/07), a Medical Research Council (MRC) and National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) partnership. This is published in full in Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation; Vol. 11, No. 5. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Background It is recognised that longer-term needs after stroke may not be well addressed by current services. The aim of this programme of research was to develop a novel primary care model to address these needs and to evaluate this new approach. Objectives The work was divided into three workstreams: development of a primary care model development of a ‘Managing Life After Stroke’ programme (including self-management) for people with stroke evaluation of the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of these interventions. Design The development of the primary care model involved information gathering in the form of literature reviews, patient and public involvement workshops, qualitative studies (interviews and focus groups), a consensus study and a pilot study, all feeding into a multidisciplinary intervention development group that approved the final primary care model. In parallel, a further literature review, consultation workshops with healthcare professionals and patients and public involvement fed into the iterative development of the ‘My Life After Stroke’ programme. In the final phase of the programme, the two interventions were evaluated in a cluster randomised controlled trial, which included a process evaluation and within-trial cost-effectiveness analysis. Setting General practices in the East of England and East Midlands. Participants People with a history of stroke identified from general practice stroke registers. Interventions The Improving Primary Care After Stroke model of primary care delivery. This comprised five components: a structured review; a direct point of contact; improving communication between primary and secondary care; local service mapping; and training of primary care professionals. The ‘My Life After Stroke’ self-management programme for people with stroke comprised an initial individual session, four weekly group-based sessions and a final individual session. Main outcome measures The coprimary end points for the trial were two subscales (emotion and participation) of the Stroke Impact Scale v3.0 at 12 months after randomisation. Secondary outcomes included the Stroke Impact Scale Short Form, the EuroQol-5 Dimension, five level questionnaire, the ICEpop CAPability measure for Adults, the Southampton Stroke Self-Management Questionnaire and the Health Literacy Questionnaire. Data sources General practice records for health economic costing data. Patient questionnaires for outcomes. Results Trial: 46 clusters (general practices) were randomised with 1040 participants. At 12 months, there was a 0.64 (97.5% confidence interval −1.7 to +2.8) improvement in the emotion outcome in the intervention arm compared to the control arm and a 1.3 (97.5% confidence interval −2.0 to +4.6) increase in the participation outcome in the intervention arm compared to control. There was also no evidence of effect of the intervention on short form Stroke Impact Scale, quality of life (EuroQol 5 Dimension 5 level questionnaire), well-being (ICEpop CAPability measure for Adults), Southampton Stroke Self-Management questionnaire or health literacy (Health Literacy Questionnaire). Process evaluation: over 80% of participants received a review. Only a third of patients attended the ‘My Life After Stroke’ course. The direct point of contact service was hardly used. The local directory of services had variable take-up by healthcare professionals. It did not prove possible to support improved communication between primary and secondary care as originally intended. Training fidelity was high. Cost-effectiveness analysis: the intervention increased primary care workload and was associated with a non-significant, higher quality-adjusted life-year at 12 months. The incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year was £20,863. Limitations There were differences in age, sex and proportion of people from minority ethnic groups in the trial population as compared to a typical general practice stroke register. Uptake of the intervention was variable. Ceiling effects were observed in the primary outcome measure. Follow-up was limited to 12 months. Conclusions This programme of research has reaffirmed the importance of addressing longer-term needs of people after stroke in the community. The most commonly expressed need is fatigue. The primary care model that we developed was not effective at addressing these needs. Our qualitative findings suggest that an intervention focused on patients earlier after their stroke or one which is more intensive might be effective. There was a mismatch between the needs reported by stroke survivors and evidence available for how to address these needs. Future work Research to inform who should be offered poststroke assessment of needs in the community in the longer term (after 6 months). Development and evaluation of interventions to address fatigue, low mood and cognitive problems in people with stroke in the community. Study registration This study is registered as PROSPERO 2015 CRD42015026602. Trial registration This trial is registered as ISRCTNCT03353519. Funding This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Programme Grants for Applied Research programme (NIHR award ref: PTC-RP-PG-0213-20001) and is published in full in Programme Grants for Applied Research; Vol. 12, No. 1. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information. Plain language summary What was the question? People tell us that their longer-term problems after a stroke are not always well dealt with. We wanted to develop a new way for general practice to look after their patients who have had a stroke in such a way that these problems are better addressed. What did we do? We looked at the evidence that already exists in terms of what problems people face after their stroke. Then we spoke to people with stroke and their carers and to healthcare professionals to understand how general practice might be better able to support people. A multiprofessional group, including patients, met to discuss our findings and propose a new way of working. The approach included: review of patient needs by a practice nurse using a checklist adapted for use in general practice group-based self-management course directory of relevant local services direct point of contact for people with stroke to use ways to improve communication between primary care and specialist staff training for practice nurses. Over 1 year, we followed up patients with stroke in 23 practices who tried out this new model of care and compared what happened to them and how they felt with patients from 23 practices that had not introduced this new model. What did we find? We found that the commonest problems that people reported included fatigue, difficulties in thinking and mood. We found that the new model did not change the impact of stroke on patients who received it. Some participants indicated that the approach might have been more helpful earlier in their stroke journey. What does this mean? The services developed in this research are not relevant to all people after stroke in the longer term. Research is needed on how to address the specific poststroke problems that patients report. Scientific summary Background There is evidence that stroke survivors and their carers have longer-term needs that are not well addressed by current services. This shortfall might be met by extending access to specialist services or enhancing generalist primary care services. This programme of research focuses on the latter approach. Objectives Develop a primary care-based model to optimise postdischarge longer-term care: Understand perspectives of stroke survivors and carers on experiences of health and care services since discharge from specialist services. Explore roles of specialist and primary care services for stroke aftercare and avenues of communication between specialist and primary care. Consider poststroke checklists for primary care. Establish criteria for rereferral from primary care to specialist care. Agree the components of the primary care model. Pilot the primary care model. Develop a ‘Managing Life After Stroke’ (MLAS) programme (including self-management) for people with stroke. Evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of these interventions. Methods The primary care model was informed by: A systematic review and meta-ethnography of the literature We recorded themes identified by authors of the included studies and grouped these into issues relating to continuity of care, access to services, information and quality of communication. We then developed our own overarching explanation of why stroke survivors and caregivers had the experiences that they did. Qualitative interviews with patients and carers Semistructured interviews were carried out with 22 stroke survivors and their caregivers (n = 14), recruited from general practice stroke registers. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed and analysed using a framework approach. Focus groups with healthcare professionals and patients Six focus groups were run involving healthcare professionals (HCPs) from primary care and from six NHS acute trusts in the East of England and East Midlands in order to better understand communication processes between generalists and specialists with regard to stroke care. Focus groups were carried out to explore the use of checklists to support management of healthcare needs of people with stroke in primary care. Focus groups with HCPs and with patients and their carers were held separately. Modified Research And Development Corporation Appropriateness Consensus Study The purpose of this study was to understand when referrals to specialist services are appropriate from the perspective of HCPs. Fictional scenarios were devised covering all the areas of need that had been identified in our work on checklists. In the first round, panellists representing both secondary and primary care were asked to rate online the appropriateness of referral decisions in these scenarios. In the second round, the panellists met face to face to discuss each referral decision. Scoping review The aim was to give an overview of interventions delivered in the community that were effective at addressing long-term outcomes after stroke. We conducted a systematic search to identify reviews of randomised controlled trials (RCTs), reviews of observational studies, and single trials published in the last 5 years. Pilot study A 6-month single arm (i.e. no control group) feasibility study was carried out in a single practice in Cambridgeshire. The Managing Life After Stroke programme The MLAS programme was informed by a literature review; a consultation phase with a multidisciplinary healthcare professional group and stroke survivors; an iterative phase in two cycles and a feasibility study. The evaluation phase involved three components: Cluster randomised controlled trial Forty-six general practices were randomised to usual care or the new model of care. Participants were people with stroke on the practice stroke registers. The coprimary outcomes were two subscales (emotion and participation) of the stroke impact scale. Follow-up was by postal questionnaire at 6 and 12 months. Process evaluation A mixed-methods design was used to assess fidelity of design, training, delivery and engagement. Methods included questionnaires sent to practices (to ascertain ‘usual care’); video-recording and audio-recording of training sessions of staff; direct observations; and interviews with staff and participants. Cost-effectiveness analysis The evaluation takes a ‘within-trial’ approach and assesses only those costs and benefits that fall within the first 12 months following the evaluation. Costs were measured from the perspective of the UK NHS. Resources to implement the intervention were costed using a micro-costing approach that took into account the time spent by healthcare staff on training and intervention delivery. Health service use was assessed through patient questionnaires and primary care electronic health records. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were estimated from the EuroQol-5 Dimension, five level questionnaire (EQ-5D-5L) questionnaire. We calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios to represent the incremental cost required to obtain one additional QALY when moving from usual care to the new intervention. Results A systematic review and meta-ethnography of the literature Key themes were lack of proactive follow-up; premature withdrawal of services; lack of support in specific areas; lack of information about local services and realistic timescales for recovery; and poor communication both between patients and HCPs and between different HCPs. Our overarching narrative was of marginalisation of stroke survivors and caregivers by the healthcare system, characterised by passivity of both patients and health services and fluidity of needs. Qualitative interviews with patients and carers Patients talked about many different needs, including physical (e.g. fatigue), psychological (e.g. fear of another stroke; loss of confidence) and informational (e.g. feeling unprepared; lack of prognosis). They noted a lack of continuity and advance planning from health services. Caregivers added the impact on themselves, such as the loss of the physical/emotional side of a relationship. General practice was the first point of contact with health services to raise any of these needs. Focus groups with healthcare professionals and patients Roles of generalist and specialist overlapped, but they tended to work in silos. Referral decision-making was associated with quality of communication, which was variable. Barriers to communication included different information technology systems, different technical languages and lack of knowledge of roles. Both HCPs and patients were supportive of the idea of using a checklist, though healthcare professionals emphasised the importance of having a pathway to address identified needs. Some needs were added to the 11 in the published checklist that was used as a starting point. Modified Research And Development Corporation Appropriateness Consensus Study For most referral decisions (59 out of 69, 86%), there was agreement as to whether or not referral was indicated. Lack of consensus tended to be where it was questioned if specialist input would lead to patient benefit. This lack of consensus was not related to professional background. Scoping review Rehabilitation and physiotherapy interventions to address activities of daily living were most common. Cognitive problems, fatigue and specific mental health outcomes were not addressed. Pilot study Out of 48 stroke survivors invited, 13 (27%) took part. All attended a stroke review with a practice nurse. Action plans were generated for 10 (77%) patients. The Improving Primary Care After Stroke (IPCAS) model The final model included five elements: a structured review; a direct point of contact (DPoC); improving communication between primary and secondary care; local service mapping; and training of primary care professionals. Managing Life After Stroke development work The feasibility study involved 17 stroke survivors and 7 carers in three courses. Fifteen (88%) patients completed the course and 5 (71%) carers. Fourteen of 15 (93%) participants who completed a follow-up questionnaire said they would recommend the course to someone else. The final MLAS self-management programme for people with stroke comprised an initial individual session, four weekly group-based sessions and a final individual session. Cluster randomised controlled trial One thousand and forty patients with a mean age of 70.6, 63% male, were recruited from 46 general practices (range per practice: 8–36). Median time since last stroke was 5 years. Primary outcome data were available for 76% of those still alive at 12 months. There was a 0.64 [97.5% confidence interval (CI) −1.7 to +2.8] improvement in the emotion outcome in the intervention arm compared to the control arm and a 1.3 (97.5% CI −2.0 to +4.6) increase in the participation outcome in the intervention arm compared to control. There was no evidence of effect of the intervention on short form Stroke Impact Scale, quality of life (QoL) (EQ-5D-5L), well-being ICEpop CAPability measure for Adults, Southampton Stroke Self-Management questionnaire or Health Literacy Questionnaire (HLQ). One hundred and seventy (43%) patients in the intervention arm identified fatigue as a need. Mobility (153, 39%), mood (130, 33%) and cognition (128, 33%) were the next most commonly identified needs. Process evaluation With regard to the different components of IPCAS, delivery of the structured review had the most uptake, with 421 (81%) of 522 participants receiving a review and action plans being generated. These included follow-up appointments (29%), referrals (25%) and provision of advice (45%). Only 139 patients attended an MLAS course, but those who did appeared to value it. Practice staff perceived that a lot of effort was put into setting up the DPoC service, but this was hardly used. The local directory of services had variable take-ups by HCPs. It did not prove possible to support improved communication between primary and secondary care as originally intended. Instead, we needed to rely on videos of specialist staff explaining what they did and how to access their service. Training fidelity was high. Cost-effectiveness analysis There was a non-significant mean QALY difference of 0.013 (95% CI −0.024 to 0.048) in favour of the intervention. The intervention was associated with an incremental cost to the NHS of £267.07 per person. This equated to an incremental cost per QALY of £20,863. Conclusions Implications for health care We found no evidence that structured stroke reviews offered in primary care to all stroke survivors in the community are effective at addressing stroke-related needs. Such reviews should perhaps therefore be time-limited after stroke and only continued in selected patients. The 15-item checklist that we developed is perceived to be useful and practicable in primary care. Greater attention needs to be paid to services that can address the prevalent long-term needs of stroke survivors, namely fatigue, low mood and cognitive issues. From the evidence in the wider literature, self-management programmes have a role in improving QoL of stroke survivors in the community. Our findings suggest that such programmes are likely to be of greatest value if offered early after discharge from hospital. Research recommendations Research to inform who should be offered poststroke assessment of needs in the community in the longer term (after 6 months). Development and evaluation of interventions to address fatigue, low mood and cognitive problems in people with stroke in the community. Study registrations This study is registered as PROSPERO 2015 CRD42015026602. Trial registration This trial is registered as ISRCTNCT03353519. Funding This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Programme Grants for Applied Research programme (NIHR award ref: PTC-RP-PG-0213-20001) and is published in full in Programme Grants for Applied Research; Vol. 12, No. 1. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Background The treatment of traumatic haemorrhagic shock has been transformed through better haemorrhage control, use of tranexamic acid and use of blood products. The improved survival seen from these strategies has stimulated an interest in pre-hospital transfusion. Objectives To determine if the clinical effectiveness of resuscitation with red blood cells and lyophilised plasma was superior to 0.9% saline for improving tissue perfusion and reducing mortality in adults with haemorrhagic shock following major trauma. Design A multi-centre, allocation concealed, open-label, parallel group, randomised controlled trial (with internal pilot). Setting The trial was conducted in four civilian pre-hospital critical care services who operated within the National Health Service (NHS) England Major Trauma Networks. Participants Adults (aged ≥16 years) who had sustained traumatic injuries, were attended by a pre-hospital emergency medical team and were hypotensive (systolic blood pressure 1.5]; coagulation measured viscoelastically by rotational thromboelastometry (ROTEM); platelet function using multiple electrode impedance aggregometry (MultiPlate); total blood product receipt; acute respiratory distress syndrome; transfusion-related complications; organ failure-free day. Sample size and statistical analysis The trial set out to detect a 10% absolute difference between groups in the proportion of participants experiencing the primary outcome assuming an event rate of 20% in the control group and 10% in the intervention. For 80% power and type 1 error rate of 0.05, 438 participants (219 per group) were required. Allowing for 10% attrition, the sample size was set at 490 participants. During May 2018, the Data Monitoring Committee (DMC) reported a much higher than anticipated pooled event rate for the primary outcome (65%) to the Trial Steering Committee (TSC). The TSC advised to continue the trial with the original sample size unchanged, noting that the trial retained 80% power to detect a relative risk of 0.82 (71.7% control, 58.3% intervention). All primary analyses of the primary and secondary outcomes followed the intention-to-treat principle. The analyses used a model-based approach with pre-hospital critical care service included as a fixed effect covariate in the model. Treatment effects are presented with two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs). No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made. Binary outcomes were analysed using log-binomial regression models to obtain adjusted relative risks along with 95% CIs. A relative risk 0% or >10% was 48.2% and 1.3% (non-informative priors), 44.1% and 0.3% (sceptical priors) and 53.4% and 1.6% (informative priors) respectively. Secondary outcomes The event rates for the individual components of the primary outcome comprised of: Episode mortality 88/203 (43%) in the RBC/LyoPlas group compared to 99/218 (45%) in the 0.9% saline group [adjusted average differences −3% (−12% to 7%), p = 0.57]. Failure to clear lactate 98/196 (50%) compared to 113/206 (55%) [adjusted average difference −5% (−14% to 5%), p = 0.33]. Vital signs on arrival at hospital and through to 24 hours were similar between groups. The haemoglobin concentration on arrival to hospital was 133 (19) g/L in the RBC/LyoPlas group compared to 118 (23) g/L in the 0.9% saline group, an adjusted average difference of 15 g/L (95% CI 10 to 19), P < 0.0001. There were no between group differences in tests of coagulation, and platelet function was similar. Blood product use was similar following hospital admission through to 24 hours. A post-hoc analysis found that total (pre-hospital and hospital) blood and plasma use was higher in the RBC/LyoPlas group [mean difference 1.80 units (95% CI 0.58 to 3.01) and 1.54 units (95% CI 0.57 to 2.50)] respectively. Death within 3 hours occurred in 32/197 (16%) compared to 46/208 (22%), adjusted average difference −7% (−15% to 1%); P = 0.08, and within 30 days it occurred in 86/204 (42%) compared to 99/219 (45%), adjusted average difference −4% (−13% to 6%); P = 0.44. Adverse events Rates of complications and adverse events were similar across groups, and only two serious adverse events were recorded. Complications relating to transfusion in the first 24 hours were similar for the RBC/LyoPlas group 11/148 (7%); compared to 0.9% saline 9/137 (7%). Acute respiratory distress syndrome developed amongst 9/142 (6%) in the RBC/LyoPlas group and 3/129 (2%) in the 0.9% saline group [adjusted relative risk 2.71 (0.75 to 9.81)]. The number of organ failure-free days were also similar across groups [12.9 (SD 13.0) RBC/LyoPlas vs. 12.1 (13.1) 0.9% saline]. No patients required dose reductions or had treatment discontinued for drug-related toxicity. There were no treatment-related deaths. Conclusion In adults with severe injuries and haemorrhagic shock secondary to major trauma in a civilian setting, the RePHILL trial did not demonstrate that pre-hospital RBC/LyoPlas resuscitation was superior to 0.9% sodium chloride. Future research should seek to identify if specific groups of patients may benefit and explore the effects of alternative transfusion strategies. Trial registration This trial is registered as ISRCTN62326938. Funding This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation Programme (NIHR award ref: 14/152/14) and is published in full in Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation; Vol. 11, No. 2. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Background People with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease have high levels of anxiety and depression, which is associated with increased morbidity and poor uptake of effective treatments, such as pulmonary rehabilitation. Cognitive–behavioural therapy improves mental health of people with long-term conditions and could potentially increase uptake of pulmonary rehabilitation, enabling synergies that could enhance the mental health of people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Aim Our aim was to develop and evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost effectiveness of a tailored cognitive–behavioural approach intervention, which links into, and optimises the benefits of, routine pulmonary rehabilitation. Design We carried out a pragmatic multicentre randomised controlled trial using a 1.25 : 1 ratio (intervention : control) with a parallel process evaluation, including assessment of fidelity. Setting Twelve NHS trusts and five Clinical Commissioning Groups in England were recruited into the study. The intervention was delivered in participant’s own home or at a local NHS facility, and by telephone. Participants Between July 2017 and March 2020 we recruited adults with moderate/very severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and mild/moderate anxiety and/or depression, meeting eligibility criteria for assessment for pulmonary rehabilitation. Carers of participants were invited to participate. Intervention The cognitive–behavioural approach intervention (i.e. six to eight 40- to 60-minute sessions plus telephone support throughout pulmonary rehabilitation) was delivered by 31 trained respiratory healthcare professionals to participants prior to commencing pulmonary rehabilitation. Usual care included routine pulmonary rehabilitation referral. Main outcome measures Co-primary outcomes were Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale – anxiety and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale – depression at 6 months post randomisation. Secondary outcomes at 6 and 12 months included health-related quality of life, smoking status, uptake of pulmonary rehabilitation and healthcare use. Results We analysed results from 423 randomised participants (intervention, n = 242; control, n = 181). Forty-three carers participated. Follow-up at 6 and 12 months was 93% and 82%, respectively. Despite good fidelity for intervention delivery, mean between-group differences in Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale at 6 months ruled out clinically important effects (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale – anxiety mean difference –0.60, 95% confidence interval –1.40 to 0.21; Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale – depression mean difference –0.66, 95% confidence interval –1.39 to 0.07), with similar results at 12 months. There were no between-group differences in any of the secondary outcomes. Sensitivity analyses did not alter these conclusions. More adverse events were reported for intervention participants than for control participants, but none related to the trial. The intervention did not generate quality-of-life improvements to justify the additional cost (adjusted mean difference £770.24, 95% confidence interval –£27.91 to £1568.39) to the NHS. The intervention was well received and many participants described positive affects on their quality of life. Facilitators highlighted the complexity of participants’ lives and considered the intervention to be of potential valuable; however, the intervention would be difficult to integrate within routine clinical services. Our well-powered trial delivered a theoretically designed intervention with good fidelity. The respiratory-experienced facilitators were trained to deliver a low-intensity cognitive–behavioural approach intervention, but high-intensity cognitive–behavioural therapy might have been more effective. Our broad inclusion criteria specified objectively assessed anxiety and/or depression, but participants were likely to favour talking therapies. Randomisation was concealed and blinding of outcome assessment was breached in only 15 participants. Conclusions The tailored cognitive–behavioural approach intervention delivered with fidelity by trained respiratory healthcare professionals to people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease was neither clinically effective nor cost-effective. Alternative approaches that are integrated with routine long-term condition care are needed to address the unmet, complex clinical and psychosocial needs of this group of patients. Trial registration This trial is registered as ISRCTN59537391. Funding This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 13/146/02) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 1. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information. Plain language summary People with long-standing lung problems, such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, often also have anxiety and depression, which further reduces their quality of life. Two existing treatments could help. Pulmonary rehabilitation (a programme of exercise and education) improves both the physical and mental health of people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Cognitive–behavioural therapy (a talking therapy) may reduce anxiety and depression. The TANDEM [Tailored intervention for Anxiety and Depression Management in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)] intervention linked these two treatments by providing talking therapy based on cognitive–behavioural therapy during the waiting time following referral for pulmonary rehabilitation. The TANDEM treatment was delivered by respiratory healthcare professionals (e.g. nurses or physiotherapists) trained to deliver the talking therapy in six to eight weekly sessions. The sessions were conducted in the participant’s home (or another convenient location), with brief telephone support during the pulmonary rehabilitation. Of 423 participants recruited to the study, 242 participants received TANDEM talking therapy and 181 participants received usual care (including a referral to pulmonary rehabilitation). We measured mental health, quality of life, social life, attendance at pulmonary rehabilitation and healthcare use in both groups at 6 and 12 months. Forty-three carers joined the study and we assessed their mental well-being. We interviewed patients, carers and health professionals to find out their views and experience of the TANDEM treatment. We also examined whether or not the TANDEM treatment was good value for money. The TANDEM treatment did not improve the mental or the physical health of people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. In addition, the TANDEM treatment cost the NHS an extra £770 per patient, which was not good value for money. The TANDEM treatment was well received, and many participants told us how it had helped them. Heath-care professionals noted how participants did not just have chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, but were coping with many physical, mental and social problems. The TANDEM intervention was not effective and, therefore, other strategies will be needed to help people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and mental health problems live with their condition. Scientific summary Background Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a major public health problem globally, and is associated with socioeconomic deprivation and with high morbidity and mortality. In the UK, about 1.2 million people have diagnosed COPD, incurring more than 140,000 hospital admissions, over a million bed-days and about 30,000 deaths each year. The condition costs the NHS around £1.9B annually. Symptoms of anxiety and depression are common comorbidities in people with COPD, with a prevalence of 30–40% or higher. These mood disorders may reduce people’s ability to manage their COPD effectively, reduce physical activity capacity and make patients susceptible to exacerbations (i.e. acute worsening of the condition), hospital admissions and re-admissions. There is robust evidence that pulmonary rehabilitation (PR), which is a multidisciplinary exercise and education intervention, improves health-related outcomes, including functional exercise capacity, quality of life and emotional well-being, and reduces breathlessness in COPD. National and international COPD guidelines recommend offering PR to patients. Unfortunately, more than one-third of people referred to PR do not attend and only two-thirds of attendees complete the course. A recent Cochrane review concluded that psychological interventions, including cognitive–behavioural therapy (CBT), may improve depression in people with COPD, but the reviewers called for larger, more methodologically robust studies. The current study was proposed in response to a National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment brief based on a systematic review that concluded that psychological interventions combined with exercise training resulted in clinically significant improvements in symptoms of anxiety and depression in COPD, compared with CBT alone. A more recent Cochrane review has concluded that a psychological therapy combined with a PR programme reduced depressive symptoms more than a PR programme alone. Aims and objectives The primary aim of the study was to evaluate a tailored psychological cognitive–behavioural approach (CBA) intervention [i.e. the TANDEM (Tailored intervention for Anxiety and Depression Management in COPD) intervention], which precedes, links into and optimises the benefits of attending an existing PR course, with the aim of reducing mild/moderate anxiety and/or depression symptoms in people with COPD and moderate to very severe airflow limitation. Specific objectives To develop and refine the TANDEM intervention to develop a training programme for healthcare professionals who will deliver the programme, and to document the training programme in a manual. To undertake a randomised controlled trial of the TANDEM intervention to examine the effectiveness of the TANDEM intervention on clinical outcomes compared with usual care (i.e. guideline-defined care, including the offer of PR). To examine the affect of the TANDEM intervention (which is directed at patients) on carers (where appropriate). To determine the cost effectiveness of the TANDEM intervention from an NHS and Personal Social Services perspective. To conduct a process evaluation to assist interpretation of findings and inform the implementation of the TANDEM intervention if the trial results are positive. Methods Design We carried out a pragmatic multicentre parallel-arm individual patient randomised controlled trial with an internal pilot, evaluating clinical effectiveness and health economics. A parallel process evaluation included assessing fidelity of intervention delivery. Co-primary outcomes were symptoms of anxiety and depression determined by the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale – anxiety (HADS-A) and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale – depression (HADS-D) at 6 months post randomisation. Participants were followed up for 12 months. There was full allocation concealment and baseline measures were collected before randomisation. Participants were inevitably aware of their allocation status, but all healthcare professionals were blind to allocation, as were the researchers who collected or analysed outcome measures. Study participants were recruited from primary and secondary care and from referral to PR in 12 geographic areas in England. Participants with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease Inclusion criteria Patients who were willing to provide informed consent. Patients with a confirmed diagnosis of COPD and spirometry with moderate to severe airflow limitation (note that, following the internal pilot, this was extended to include very severe airflow limitation). Patients who were eligible for referral to PR. Patients with a Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) score at the baseline screening suggestive of mild to moderate anxiety or depression, or both (i.e. a subscale score from 8 to 15). Exclusion criteria HADS scores suggestive of severe anxiety or depression. Patients who had received a psychological intervention in the last 6 months (note that patients on antidepressants/anxiolytics were not excluded). Patients who were to commence PR within 4 weeks. Patients with a comorbidity so severe that it would prevent engagement with the intervention/trial. Patients with insufficient fluency in English to complete the intervention or questionnaires (note that patients with literacy difficulties were not excluded). Recruitment of carers Participants were requested to identify a ‘particular family caregiver or friend who helps them’ for invitation to join a substudy examining the effect of the patient-directed TANDEM intervention on carers. Randomisation Computerised randomisation was conducted remotely by an independent statistician using a 1.25 : 1 ratio of intervention: control to account for clustering by facilitator. The TANDEM intervention The intervention was developed following the Medical Research Council’s framework for developing complex interventions and Yardley’s ‘person-based approach’. The intervention consisted of a tailored, manualised intervention based on CBAs and self-management support. Therapy consisted of six to eight sessions that were delivered weekly, face-to-face, in participants’ homes or in primary or secondary care settings, by experienced respiratory healthcare professionals (i.e. ‘facilitators’). Between completing the face-to-face intervention and up to 2 weeks after completing PR, facilitators offered brief telephone support. Facilitators were trained over 3 days (across 6 weeks) and were assessed on completion of training. Throughout intervention delivery, facilitators received regular supervision from an experienced CBT therapist. Control arm participants Control arm participants received usual care following local arrangements, including PR. All participants also received informational resources from the British Lung Foundation (London, UK). Outcome measures In addition to our co-primary outcomes, we collected patient-reported outcomes at baseline and at 6 and 12 months using the following supervised self-complete questionnaires: Beck Depression Inventory II, Beck Anxiety Inventory, the St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire, social integration and support, an adapted UK Time Use Survey, the Brief Illness Perception Questionnaire, smoking status and EuroQoL-5 Dimensions, five-level version (EQ-5D-5L). We collected information on medications and health and social care resource use via a modified Client Services Receipt Inventory. In addition, we collected information on medications and healthcare resource use from participants’ general practitioners. PR attendance data were collected from local services at 12 months. Data from carers At baseline and at 6 and 12 months, we collected carer-reported outcomes using the Warwick–Edinburgh Mental WellBeing Scale and the Zarit Burden Interview (22 items). Statistical analysis Statistical analysis followed our published analysis plan. The primary analysis was by intention to treat, assuming that outcomes were missing at random. In sensitivity analyses, we tested this assumption by modelling the affect of differences between missing and non-missing outcomes on the estimated treatment effect for both co-primary outcomes. All outcomes other than smoking were analysed using a mixed linear regression model, with adjustment for baseline HADS-A and HADS-D scores, breathlessness, smoking status, NHS trust and (except for HADS scores) the measurement of that outcome at baseline. Analyses allowed for clustering by facilitator in the intervention arm by adjusting for a random effect of facilitator. Economic evaluation Intervention costs were calculated using a combination of data from patients’ general practice records and a Client Service Receipt Inventory. General practice data acted as the primary source of information on health service contacts, and self-reported data were used as supplementary data. Health and social care utilisation were costed using NHS reference costs and unit costs of health and social care. We adopted a ‘cost–utility’ framework, with the incremental resource impact of TANDEM over usual care quantified from an NHS/Personal Social Services (PSS) perspective, and patient outcomes quantified as incremental quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained. The QALYs gained over the 12-month follow-up were estimated, based on self-report, at baseline and at 6- and 12-month follow-up using the EQ-5D-5L. Health state utility scores applicable to the EQ-5D-5L were ‘cross-walked’ back to their equivalent three-level version values using a recommended algorithm. QALYs for each participant were quantified with respect to the entire 12 months’ follow-up using the area under the curve method. Intervention cost effectiveness was evaluated with reference to the incremental net health benefit of TANDEM combined with usual care compared with usual care alone (expressed in QALY units) and estimated assuming a cost-effectiveness threshold of £20,000 per QALY gained. Uncertainty was addressed using cost-effectiveness planes and acceptability curves. Adverse events Adverse events (AEs) and serious adverse events were recorded and reported in accordance with the Data Monitoring Ethics Committee’s and sponsors’ requirements, and following the standard operating procedures of the Joint Research Management Office for Barts Health NHS Trust (London, UK) and Queen Mary University of London (London, UK). Process evaluation The process evaluation adopted a mixed-methods design, incorporating qualitative and quantitative methods. We conducted 49 one-to-one qualitative interviews with the following four groups: (1) participants and carers, (2) TANDEM facilitators, (3) TANDEM facilitators’ clinical supervisors and (4) stakeholders. Data were analysed thematically using an inductive approach and constant comparison. Analysis was a reflexive, iterative process involving review and multidisciplinary discussion. NVivo 12 software (QSR International, Warrington, UK) was used to assist the organisation and analysis of the data. A thematic narrative was constructed for each group. Fidelity With participant permission, all TANDEM intervention sessions were recorded digitally. A bespoke fidelity treatment delivery framework, which included the Cognitive First Aid Rating Scale, and an intervention-specific adherence measure, which included assessment of whether or not core components and topic-specific sessions were delivered, were used to assess therapeutic competency. One or two entire TANDEM intervention courses were assessed per facilitator. Coding was conducted by a psychologist, and seven cases (19.4%) were duplicate coded by our co-applicant health psychologist for quality assurance. Results Forty-nine per cent (2191/4491) of potentially eligible participants approached agreed to be contacted by the research team, with 48% (n = 1062) of participants formally assessed for eligibility. Of these participants, 441 (41.5%) were eligible, 426 were recruited to the study and 423 were randomised and analysed (intervention, n = 242; control, n = 181). HADS-A and HADS-D primary outcome data were available for 205 (85%) and 204 (84%) of participants randomised to the intervention, respectively, and for 164 (90%) of control participants. At 12 months. HADS-A and HADS-D secondary outcome data were available for 191 (79%) and 190 (79%) of participants randomised to the intervention and for 150 (83%) and 152 (84%) control participants. More participants withdrew from the intervention arm (n = 16, 6.6%) than from the control arm (n = 5, 2.8%) and there were more deaths in the intervention arm than in the control arm [13 (5.4%) vs. 3 (1.7%), respectively]. No deaths or other AEs were associated with the study. Of the participants recruited, the median age was 69 (interquartile range 62–75) years, 50% (n = 213) were male and 42% (n = 176) lived alone. Only 40 (9.5%) participants were working and most (329/416, 79%) had completed full-time education by age 16 years. Overall, participants’ COPD was disabling. Participants has significant breathlessness and low health-related quality-of-life scores, and 78 (18%) participants were too breathless to leave the house. Comorbidities were common and 30% (n = 128) of participants were still smoking. Forty-three carers were recruited to the substudy. Twenty-four carers cared for intervention participants and 19 carers cared for control participants. A total of 196 (81%) intervention participants received at least two sessions of the TANDEM intervention (i.e. the predefined minimum dose) and 136 (56%) intervention participants received six or more sessions. Clinical effectiveness results At 6 months, the mean difference between the two study arms for anxiety [HADS-A –0.60, 95% confidence interval (CI) –1.40 to 0.21] and depression (HADS-D –0.66, 95% CI –1.39 to 0.07) was less than the minimal clinically important differences for these scales, and the 95% CIs ruled out clinically important effects on these outcomes. As in the primary outcome analysis, CIs for HADS-A and HADS-D at 12 months, and for all other questionnaire scores at 6 and 12 months, ruled out clinically important effects of the intervention. Overall, smoking prevalence fell across the 12 months of the study, but there was no discernible difference between participants in the two study arms (odds ratio at 12 months for intervention vs. control 0.90, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.50) and around one-quarter of participants were still smoking at 12 months. In the intervention arm, 122 (50%) participants were referred to PR, 121 participants attended at least one PR session and 73 (30%) participants completed the course. In the control arm, 88 (49%) participants were referred, 77 (43%) participants attended at least one PR session and 54 (30%) participants completed the course. No differences were seen in outcome measures at 6 or 12 months for carers of participants in the study arms. Health economics results The economic evaluation of the TANDEM intervention suggested that the intervention is highly unlikely to be a cost-effective means of improving mental health outcomes in patients with COPD. After jointly considering incremental effects on costs and QALYs, and allowing for sampling uncertainty in the trial data, there was a high degree of certainty that the TANDEM intervention would not offer sufficient value for money based on cost-effectiveness criteria routinely applied to assess whether or not new healthcare technologies should be funded by the NHS. Process evaluation results Respiratory health professionals recruited to train as TANDEM facilitators recognised the need for holistic care for patients with COPD and were keen to develop knowledge and skills in addressing psychological health needs. The health professionals valued developing skills in providing psychological care for patients using a collaborative decision-making approach, but the health professionals did not feel able to do this without training and found it challenging initially. The TANDEM intervention was generally well received by patients. Developing a therapeutic alliance was considered necessary by all interviewees; however, it took time to build rapport and the complexity of the therapeutic task was highlighted in patient, carer and facilitator interviews. The fidelity study found that the TANDEM intervention was delivered with therapeutic competency and that key tasks were delivered with fidelity. Most interviewees felt that it would not be possible to deliver the TANDEM intervention as part of usual care because of staff and financial resource constraints. Conclusions The study demonstrated that it is possible to train healthcare professionals to deliver a CBA competently and with fidelity, and that, overall, the TANDEM CBA intervention appeared to be popular with both those receiving it and those delivering it. However, the intervention did not improve mood or health status, nor did it improve any of our important secondary outcomes, such as uptake and completion of PR, healthcare resource use and smoking cessation. Recommendations for further research Given the considerable unmet need, alternative interventions to support people with advanced COPD and symptoms of anxiety and depression are required. It is worth exploring whether or not an intervention like the TANDEM intervention might be effective for people with COPD much earlier in their disease trajectories. We suggest evaluating the incorporation of development of cognitive–behavioural skills as part of undergraduate and postgraduate training for a variety of different healthcare professionals, with the aim of integrating this approach into routine healthcare delivery for long-term conditions. Trial registration This trial is registered as ISRCTN59537391. Funding This award was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 13/146/02) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 1. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Some text in this abstract has been reproduced from Lindsay J, Din S, Hawkey C, Hind D, Irving P, Lobo A, et al. OFR-9 An RCT of autologous stem-cell transplantation in treatment refractory Crohn’s disease (low-intensity therapy evaluation): ASTIClite. Gut 2021;70(Suppl. 4):A4. Background Treatment-refractory Crohn’s disease is characterised by chronic symptoms, poor quality of life and high costs to the NHS, and through days of work lost by patients. A previous trial of autologous haematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) failed its end point of medication-free clinical remission for 3 months with no evidence of disease activity, and reported high toxicity. Subsequent studies suggest that HSCT achieves complete mucosal healing in 50% of patients, and that toxicity likely relates to the cyclophosphamide dose. Objectives The primary objective was to assess the efficacy of HSCTlite (HSCT with low-dose cyclophosphamide) compared with standard care for inducing regression of intestinal ulceration in patients with refractory Crohn’s disease at week 48. Secondary objectives included the assessment of disease activity, quality of life and regimen safety. Mechanistic objectives included immune reconstitution after HSCTlite. Design Two-arm, parallel-group randomised controlled trial with a 2 : 1 (intervention : control) allocation ratio. Setting Nine NHS trusts (eight trusts were recruitment sites; one trust was a treatment-only site). Participants Adults with treatment-refractory Crohn’s disease, for whom surgery was inappropriate or who had declined surgery. Interventions The intervention treatment was HSCTlite using cyclophosphamide, and the control was any current available treatment for Crohn’s disease, apart from stem cell transplantation. Main outcomes The primary outcome was treatment success at week 48 [mucosal healing (Simple Endoscopic Score for Crohn’s Disease ulcer subscore of 0) without surgery or death], assessed by central readers blinded to allocation and timing of assessment. Key secondary outcomes were clinical remission, Simple Endoscopic Score for Crohn’s Disease scores at week 48, change in Crohn’s Disease Activity Index scores and safety. Results The trial was halted owing to Suspected unexpected serious adverse events that took place after randomising 23 patients (HSCTlite arm, n = 13; usual-care arm, n = 10). Ten out of the 13 patients randomised to the HSCTlite arm received the intervention and nine (one death) reached the 48-week follow-up. In the usual-care arm 9 out of the 10 patients randomised reached the 48-week follow-up (one ineligible). The primary outcome was available for 7 out of 10 HSCTlite patients (including the patient who died) and six out of nine usual-care patients. Absence of endoscopic ulceration without surgery or death was reported in three out of seven (43%) HSCTlite patients, compared with zero out of six (0%) usual-care patients. Centrally read Simple Endoscopic Score for Crohn’s Disease scores [mean (standard deviation)] were 10.8 (6.3) and 10.0 (6.1) at baseline, compared with 2.8 (2.9) and 18.7 (9.1) at week 48, in the HSCT and usual-care arms, respectively. Clinical remission (Crohn’s Disease Activity Index scores of 18.5 kg/m2). Have received a diagnosis of CD using colonoscopy, histology and/or radiology. Have had a disease duration of at least 6 months. Have a disease distribution accessible to endoscopic assessment (jejuno-ileal, ileo-caecal or colonic). Have had active clinical CD activity with impaired quality of life at any time within 3 months prior to randomisation into the trial, as assessed by a gastroenterology clinician. Be refractory or intolerant to azathioprine, mercaptopurine or methotrexate. Be refractory or intolerant to at least two classes of biologic therapy [currently anti-tumour necrosis factor (TNF) therapy, vedolizumab (Entyvio, Takeda UK Limited, London, UK) or ustekinumab (Stelara, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, New Brunswick, NJ, USA)] despite dose optimisation. Be considered unsuitable for surgery or have had surgery declined. Have endoscopic evidence of active disease in screening [Simple Endoscopic Score for Crohn’s Disease (SES-CD) ulcer size subscore of ≥ 2 in at least one segment]. SES-CD will be used as standard for patients with disease in the ileum and/or colon. Should the disease be only proximal to the ileum, the SES-CD would still be used to score the relevant bowel segment. Have undergone a satisfactory European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation. Autoimmune Disease Working Party-recommended screening assessment prior to HSCT. Be willing to discontinue all immunosuppressant medication after randomisation if allocated to the HSCT arm. Be, in the opinion of the Trial Management Group (TMG), fit enough to undergo treatment. Participants were ineligible if any of the following conditions were met: Have received a diagnosis of ulcerative colitis or indeterminate colitis. Have no evidence of active CD on screening endoscopic assessment. Have strictures that prevent assessment for endoscopic active disease. Have undrained perianal fistulae (patients with previous perianal disease or perianal disease adequately drained with a seton in situ were eligible). Presence of undrained perianal sepsis on screening pelvic [magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan, or computerised tomography (CT) scan if MRI was contraindicated]. Have evidence of intra-abdominal sepsis on abdominal MRI (or CT scan if MRI scan was contraindicated). Have an active or latent mycobacterial infection. Have had prior exposure to hepatitis B virus, hepatitis C virus or human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). Have evidence of an enteric or systemic infection. Be pregnant or breastfeeding, or planning pregnancy within the study duration. The possibility of current pregnancy was to be ruled out with a pregnancy test at the screening assessment. Be unwilling to use adequate contraception (if appropriate) until at least 12 months after the last dose of study drug. Have a contraindication to the use of cyclophosphamide, fludarabine, filgrastim or rabbit anti-thymocyte globulin (Thymoglobulin, Sanofi UK, Reading, UK). Have a significant medical comorbidity that precludes HSCT, as adjudicated by the TMG. Have significant psychiatric comorbidity. Have significant language barriers likely to affect their understanding of the study or their ability to complete outcome questionnaires. Be participating in another interventional clinical trial. Be considered medically unfit for HSCT as defined by any of the following criteria – Renal: creatinine clearance of 6.7 kPa. Forced expiratory volume or forced vital capacity of 1.0 × 109/l for two consecutive days. Participants randomised to the usual-care arm continued with conventional, biologic or nutritional therapy for the management of CD, until the primary end point was assessed. Follow-up Participants were followed up at 8, 14, 24, 32, 40 and 48 weeks. Day 0 of the follow up was the date of stem cell reinfusion for HSCT arm participants and day 49, post randomisation, for usual-care arm participants to align the timelines in both groups. Main outcome measures The primary outcome was treatment success at week 48, defined as mucosal healing [no endoscopic ulceration (SES-CD ulcer subscore of zero, assessed by central readers blind to allocation and time of assessment)] without surgery or death. Key secondary outcomes included clinical remission using the Crohn’s Disease Activity Index (CDAI), the Harvey–Bradshaw Index and patient-reported outcomes; SES-CD at week 48; change in CDAI SES-CD between baseline and week 48; assessment of safety through reports of AEs and SAEs; patient-reported quality of life; and healthcare resource use. Mechanistic outcomes included analysis of re-engraftment. Results The trial was halted because of unexpected SAEs after 23 patients (HSCT arm, n = 13; usual-care arm, n = 10) had been randomised. Patients had advanced disease [mean (standard deviation) CD duration 13.8 (7) years, mean CDAI at baseline 337.5 (182.4)], with 20 (91%) having undergone at least one resection and nine (41%) having a stoma (these figures are calculated based on the 22 participants in the intention-to-treat population, as opposed to the 23 participants randomised). Of the 13 participants randomised to receive HSCTlite, three withdrew before transplantation, 12 reached mobilisation, and 10 went on to receive stem cell reinfusion. Of the 10 usual-care arm participants, eight received medications specifically to treat CD (including biologic therapies and corticosteroids), one underwent surgery for CD (small bowel resection) and one withdrew. All patients contributed to the safety analysis, and 10 patients who completed HSCT and nine patients receiving usual care contributed to the efficacy analyses. The primary outcome using central reading was available for 7 out of 10 HSCT and six out of nine usual-care patients at week 48. Absence of endoscopic ulceration without surgery or death (at 48 weeks) was reported in three out of seven (43%) HSCT patients, compared with zero out of six (0%) usual-care patients. Centrally read SES-CD scores [mean (SD)] were 10.8 (6.3) and 10.0 (6.1) at baseline, compared with 2.8 (2.9) and 18.7 (9.1) at week 48, in the HSCT and usual-care arms, respectively. Centrally read change in SES-CD fell by 6.4 (4.3) in HSCT patients, whereas it increased by 7.5 (3.5) in usual-care patients. Clinical remission (CDAI

Background Medicine prescribing, monitoring and administration in care homes can be significantly enhanced. Effective interventions to improve pharmaceutical care and resident outcomes are required. The enablement of pharmacists to prescribe provides an opportunity for pharmacist independent prescribers to assume responsibility for improving pharmaceutical care, medication-related outcomes and resident safety whilst reducing general practitioner workload. Objective(s) To determine the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of pharmacist independent prescribing in care homes. Design Development work was undertaken through five work packages before the delivery of the definitive trial. Triads of pharmacist independent prescribers, care home and general practice with responsibility over 20 care home residents were recruited and cluster randomised to intervention or usual care for 6 months. Researchers were blinded at recruitment stage only. Recruitment of 880 residents was required to provide 80% statistical power, to show a 21% reduction in falls over 6 months, assuming 20% attrition. Randomisation was undertaken electronically at triad level, stratified by geographical area. Intention-to-treat analysis undertaken using a negative binomial model. Parameters were estimated using a generalised estimating equation approach. Costs were captured from an NHS perspective. Quality of life (EuroQol; five domain; five level) was collected by proxy to enable cost/quality-adjusted life-year estimation. A concurrent process evaluation was performed. Safety was monitored through a review of pharmacist independent prescriber activities, independent concerns reporting and review of adverse events. Participants Forty-nine triads of general practitioners, pharmacist independent prescribers and care homes were recruited with 454 residents allocated to the intervention arm and 428 to the control arm. Intervention Medication review and care planning, medication reconciliation, staff training, support with care home medication-related procedures, deprescribing and authorisation of monthly prescriptions. Main outcome measure Fall rate per person over 6 months. Results Data for 449 intervention and 427 control residents available for final analysis. The 6-month fall rate ratio in favour of intervention was 0.91 (95% confidence interval 0.66 to 1.26; p=0.58). No significant difference in secondary outcomes was identified except Drug Burden Index (rate ratio 0.83, 95% confidence interval 0.75 to 0.92; p

Background The place of tonsillectomy in the management of sore throat in adults remains uncertain. Objectives To establish the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of tonsillectomy, compared with conservative management, for tonsillitis in adults, and to evaluate the impact of alternative sore throat patient pathways. Design This was a multicentre, randomised controlled trial comparing tonsillectomy with conservative management. The trial included a qualitative process evaluation and an economic evaluation. Setting The study took place at 27 NHS secondary care hospitals in Great Britain. Participants A total of 453 eligible participants with recurrent sore throats were recruited to the main trial. Interventions Patients were randomised on a 1 : 1 basis between tonsil dissection and conservative management (i.e. deferred surgery) using a variable block-stratified design, stratified by (1) centre and (2) severity. Main outcome measures The primary outcome measure was the total number of sore throat days over 24 months following randomisation. The secondary outcome measures were the number of sore throat episodes and five characteristics from Sore Throat Alert Return, describing severity of the sore throat, use of medications, time away from usual activities and the Short Form questionnaire-12 items. Additional secondary outcomes were the Tonsil Outcome Inventory-14 total and subscales and Short Form questionnaire-12 items 6 monthly. Evaluation of the impact of alternative sore throat patient pathways by observation and statistical modelling of outcomes against baseline severity, as assessed by Tonsil Outcome Inventory-14 score at recruitment. The incremental cost per sore throat day avoided, the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained based on responses to the Short Form questionnaire-12 items and the incremental net benefit based on costs and responses to a contingent valuation exercise. A qualitative process evaluation examined acceptability of trial processes and ramdomised arms. Results There was a median of 27 (interquartile range 12–52) sore throats over the 24-month follow-up. A smaller number of sore throats was reported in the tonsillectomy arm [median 23 (interquartile range 11–46)] than in the conservative management arm [median 30 (interquartile range 14–65)]. On an intention-to-treat basis, there were fewer sore throats in the tonsillectomy arm (incident rate ratio 0.53, 95% confidence interval 0.43 to 0.65). Sensitivity analyses confirmed this, as did the secondary outcomes. There were 52 episodes of post-operative haemorrhage reported in 231 participants undergoing tonsillectomy (22.5%). There were 47 re-admissions following tonsillectomy (20.3%), 35 relating to haemorrhage. On average, tonsillectomy was more costly and more effective in terms of both sore throat days avoided and quality-adjusted life-years gained. Tonsillectomy had a 100% probability of being considered cost-effective if the threshold for an additional quality-adjusted life year was £20,000. Tonsillectomy had a 69% probability of having a higher net benefit than conservative management. Trial processes were deemed to be acceptable. Patients who received surgery were unanimous in reporting to be happy to have received it. Limitations The decliners who provided data tended to have higher Tonsillectomy Outcome Inventory-14 scores than those willing to be randomised implying that patients with a higher burden of tonsillitis symptoms may have declined entry into the trial. Conclusions The tonsillectomy arm had fewer sore throat days over 24 months than the conservative management arm, and had a high probability of being considered cost-effective over the ranges considered. Further work should focus on when tonsillectomy should be offered. National Trial of Tonsillectomy IN Adults has assessed the effectiveness of tonsillectomy when offered for the current UK threshold of disease burden. Further research is required to define the minimum disease burden at which tonsillectomy becomes clinically effective and cost-effective. Trial registration This trial is registered as ISRCTN55284102. Funding This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 12/146/06) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 27, No. 31. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information. Plain language summary Tonsillectomy is an operation to take out the pair of tonsil glands at the back of the throat. It is an option for adults who suffer from repeated, severe sore throats. Adults who have a tonsillectomy say that they get fewer sore throats afterwards, but it is not clear whether or not they would have got better over time without the operation. There is pressure on doctors to limit the number of tonsillectomies carried out. At the same time, emergency hospital admissions for adults with severe throat infections have been increasing. NAtional Trial of Tonsillectomy IN Adults aimed to find out whether tonsillectomy is an effective and worthwhile treatment for repeated severe sore throats or whether patients would be better off treated without an operation. A total of 453 patients from 27 hospitals in Great Britain took part in the study. Patients were assigned at random to receive either tonsillectomy or conservative management (treatment as needed from their general practitioner). We measured how many sore throats patients had in the next 2 years by sending them text messages every week. We asked about the impact of their sore throats on their quality of life and time off work, and looked at the costs of treatment. We also interviewed 47 patients, general practitioners and hospital staff about their experiences of tonsillectomy and NAtional Trial of Tonsillectomy IN Adults. The typical patient in the tonsillectomy arm had 23 days of sore throat compared with 30 days of sore throat in the conservative management arm. Tonsillectomy resulted in higher quality of life. We looked to see whether or not it was only those with the most severe sore throats who benefited from tonsillectomy, but we found that patients with more or less severe sore throats at the start all did better with tonsillectomy. Patients who had a tonsillectomy were happy to have undertaken this. Our findings suggest a clear benefit of tonsillectomy using modest additional NHS resources for adults with repeated severe sore throats. Scientific summary Background Sore throats cost the NHS over £120M per annum, including ≈ £60M for general practitioner (GP) consultations and medical therapy. The place of tonsillectomy in the management of sore throat remains uncertain. Objectives Clinical To establish the clinical effectiveness of tonsillectomy, compared with conservative management, for tonsillitis in adults. To report the number of adverse events (AEs), visits to the GP/walk-in clinic/accident and emergency, prescriptions issued and additional interventions required to manage sore throats and related events through weekly Sore Throat Alert Return (STAR) response data and primary care patient records. To adjust the estimate of effectiveness in the light of other baseline covariates, including severity of tonsillitis. To evaluate the impact of alternative sore throat patient pathways by observation and statistical modelling of outcomes. To assess to what extent trial participants were representative of the total population of sore throat patients referred to ear, nose and throat (ENT) clinics. To inform future research. Qualitative process evaluation To examine the acceptability of the trial, treatments and unforeseen consequences from the perspective of participants and stakeholders, including ENT staff and GPs. Economic evaluation To compare costs incurred by the NHS, Personal and Social Services (PSS) and participants to manage recurrent sore throats in adults. To compare quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) using the area-under-the-curve method based on Short Form questionnaire-6 Dimension (SF-6D) scores derived from longitudinal Short Form questionnaire-12 items (SF-12) responses throughout the study and during self-reported sore throat episodes. To compare the cost-effectiveness measured in terms of the incremental: cost per sore throat day avoided cost per QALY gained net benefit – estimated based on self-reported number of sore throat days and responses to a contingent valuation questionnaire administered at baseline asking participants’ willingness to pay (WTP) to avoid a sore throat day. Methods Design A multicentre, randomised controlled trial comparing the effectiveness of tonsillectomy for recurrent sore throat with that of non-surgical conservative management in a 1 : 1 ratio over a 24-month period. Surgeons, participants and site staff could not be blinded to the allocated procedure. The main trial began following the completion of a feasibility study and included a qualitative process evaluation, as well as an economic evaluation. The design, conduct and reporting of the trial were informed by patients. Crossover of participants between arms was permitted. Interventions Tonsil dissection: dissection of the palatine tonsils preferably within 6 weeks, and no more than 8 weeks, following randomisation (dissection method at the discretion of the participating centres). Conservative (non-surgical) management (i.e. deferred surgery): participants entering the conservative management arm were asked to defer surgery for up to 24 months on the understanding that they would be reviewed at 12 months. Setting and participants A total of 453 patients were recruited to the main trial from 27 NHS secondary care hospitals in Great Britain. Eligible patients were identified via general ENT referrals and established sore throat-specific referral pathways, some of which were run by ENT nurse practitioners. Inclusion criteria Aged ≥16 years. Recurrent sore throats that fulfil current Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) guidance for elective tonsillectomy. Exclusion criteria Previous tonsillectomy. Listed directly (i.e. added to waiting list without prior elective ENT outpatient appointment) during emergency admission (e.g. owing to peritonsillar abscess/quinsy). Primary sleep breathing disorder. Suspected malignancy. Tonsilloliths (as primary referral). Pregnant or breastfeeding. Bleeding diathesis (including haemophilia, sickle cell disease and platelet dysfunction). Therapeutic anticoagulation. Inability to complete self-reported questionnaires and sore throat returns. Main outcome measures Primary outcome The primary outcome measure was the total number of sore throat days over the 24 months following randomisation. The number of sore throat days was collected by a database that was designed for use in the trial (the STAR database). This database allowed participants to respond weekly to alerts by providing the number of sore throats that they had experienced in the previous 7 days (between 0 and 7 sore throat days). From the beginning of the trial, participants were able to choose their preferred method for receiving these alerts: e-mail, text message or interactive voice response (IVR) via telephone. Secondary outcomes A participant who had suffered from a sore throat in the past week (i.e. sore throat days >0) was asked to provide information on the severity of the sore throat(s) and additional data for health economics and other secondary outcomes in a STAR questionnaire. Quality-of-life data, reported as the SF-12 physical component score (PCS) and mental component score (MCS) and additional symptoms of tonsillitis, were collected every 6 months. The impact of alternative NHS sore throat pathways was measured by observation and statistical modelling of outcomes. The extent to which trial participants represented the total population of sore throat patients referred to ENT clinics was assessed through analysis of site screening logs. Adverse events Information regarding the AEs related to the trial intervention was collected during telephone calls at 1 and 2 weeks post tonsillectomy; all tonsillectomy arm serious adverse events (SAEs) were recorded throughout the duration of the trial for all participants. Economic evaluation The cost-effectiveness of tonsillectomy compared with conservative management was evaluated by estimating the total costs incurred by the NHS and PSS, and averaging these costs across participants in each trial arm. Three different analyses were undertaken: (1) a cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA), (2) a cost–utility analysis (CUA) and (3) a cost–benefit analysis (CBA). All three analyses measured costs using the same methodology but differed in their measure of effectiveness. An incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was estimated for the CEA and the CUA by dividing the difference in average total costs by the difference in average total effects. The CEA estimated the incremental cost per sore throat day avoided. The number of sore throat days was derived from the primary outcome data. The CUA estimated the incremental cost per QALY gained. QALYs were derived using the SF-6D algorithm, which estimates utility values based on responses to the SF-12, which was administered at baseline and 6, 12, 18 and 24 months post randomisation and at the time of a sore throat episode. The CBA estimated the incremental net benefit, comparing costs and benefits in monetary terms. Participants’ WTP values, estimated from the contingent valuation study, were multiplied by participants’ self-reported number of sore throat days to estimate the reduction in patient benefits in monetary terms; from this costs were subtracted to give the net benefit. Qualitative process evaluation Qualitative and cognitive interviews were carried out by researchers from Newcastle University for the feasibility study, pilot and main trial. Interviews were held with adult patients with acute tonsillitis who had been referred to ENT outpatient clinics for recurrent sore throats, ENT staff who were working at a National Trial of Tonsillectomy IN Adults (NATTINA) trial site and GPs. These interviews addressed the acceptability of the trial/treatments, unforeseen consequences from the perspective of participants and how patient experience may shape future research. Statistical analysis The primary statistical analysis was carried out on an intention-to-treat (ITT) basis, retaining patients in their randomised arms and including protocol violator and ineligible patients. Patients randomised to conservative management were asked to commit to ‘deferred surgery’. We anticipated that a number of patients would take the opportunity to switch to surgery. We also undertook sensitivity analyses, including a per-treatment (as treated) and a per-protocol analysis. The cumulative total number of sore throat days reported on a patient level was provided separately for each randomised arm. Negative binomial regression was used to compare these, adjusting for stratification variables (baseline severity as a fixed effect and site as a random effect). The summary comparative statistic reported is the incident rate ratio (IRR). The analysis took account of incomplete weekly returns by use of an exposure variable included in the model. The analysis of secondary outcomes followed a broadly similar strategy to the primary outcome. Analyses were adjusted for baseline severity and site, and repeated measures were analysed using random-effects models with appropriate error structure. Results Primary outcome The participants in this trial reported a median of 27 [interquartile range (IQR) 12–52] sore throats over the full 24 months of follow-up. Fewer sore throats were reported in the tonsillectomy arm (median 23, IQR 11–46) than in the conservative management arm (median 30, IQR 14–65). When the primary outcome (total sore throats) was compared between the two randomised arms on an ITT basis, a reduction in sore throats was seen in the tonsillectomy arm. The tonsillectomy arm had 0.53 [IRR, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.43 to 0.65] times the total sore throat days over the 24-month period than those in the conservative management arm. Sensitivity analyses on the ITT population confirmed this result. The analysis of the per-protocol population of 224 participants had, on average, a greater reduction in the number of sore throats, with patients in the tonsillectomy arm having 0.42 (IRR 95% CI 0.31 to 0.55) times the total score throats compared with the conservative management arm. Around 25% of participants did not receive the treatment that they were randomised to, which meant that some opted not to receive a tonsillectomy and some opted to cross to tonsillectomy. There is evidence to suggest that those with larger numbers of sore throats following randomisation were more likely to either opt for or remain in the tonsillectomy arm. Conversely, those with slightly smaller numbers of sore throats following randomisation were more likely to remain in conservative management or opt out of the tonsillectomy arm. Despite these crossovers, the ITT, per-protocol and per-treated analyses all confirmed that there was a significant reduction in total sore throats for those randomised to tonsillectomy. Secondary outcome measures The benefits of tonsillectomy were also seen in the secondary outcome measures. Tonsillectomy Outcome Inventory-14 (TOI-14) scores improved in both arms, but show a greater improvement in the tonsillectomy arm than the conservative management arm, where at 12 months the difference between the mean scores was –13.17 units (95% CI –17.41 to –8.92 units), indicating a reduction in symptoms. The SF-12 MCS and SF-12 PCS also show significant and beneficial differences in favour of the tonsillectomy arm over time [SF-12 MCS scores 3.71 units higher (95% CI 2.10 to 5.47) and SF-12 PCS 2.77 units higher (95% CI 0.30 to 5.23) in the tonsillectomy arm than the conservative management arm]. Adverse events There were 52 episodes of post-operative haemorrhage reported in 231 participants undergoing tonsillectomy (22.5%). Of these episodes, 35 were reported as SAEs: 8 as mild events, 22 as moderate events and 5 as severe events. No deaths were reported. Seventeen episodes were recorded as AEs, for which patients did not attend hospital. All episodes of bleeding were managed conservatively with no returns to theatre. Economic evaluation On average, tonsillectomy was more costly and more effective than conservative management. In the CEA, the incremental cost to avoid a sore throat episode was £24 per sore throat day. From the contingent valuation, the mean WTP to avoid a sore throat day was £43 (95% CI £2 to £100). In the CUA, tonsillectomy had an 87% probability of being considered cost-effective at a £5000 threshold for an additional QALY; this increased to 100% as the threshold values for an additional QALY increased. In the CBA, tonsillectomy had a 69% probability of having a higher net benefit than conservative management. Qualitative study Trial processes were deemed as acceptable, with only a few sites experiencing barriers to treatment. The use of technology to collect data was particularly well received. However, there were some challenges with recruitment, particularly for staff who lacked equipoise. ENT staff alluded to having to negotiate surgery dates with patients, which, at times, meant that they had to deviate from trial protocols. Some patients did not fully understand the process of randomisation. Patients who had received surgery were unanimous in reporting to be happy to have undertaken this, despite the challenging recovery period. Limitations There was some evidence that those with the most severe extent of disease were reluctant to enter the study (around 5 points higher scores overall on the TOI-14). Some symptoms may not be a result of tonsillitis. Not all patients were offered, or chose, to watch the trial recruitment video. The ITT analysis is likely to offer a conservative underestimate of the true impact of tonsillectomy in reducing sore throat days, as a result of patients crossing over to receive tonsillectomy. A challenge of the economic evaluation was the progressive loss of data over the 24-month follow-up. Conclusions Tonsillectomy in adults is a clinically effective intervention. It was more costly but had a high probability of being considered cost-effective over the range of analyses conducted. Participants with recurrent tonsillitis, who met current UK NHS guidelines to undergo tonsillectomy, suffered significantly fewer sore throat days over 24 months than similar participants treated conservatively. How should health services react? Pre-NATTINA, UK guidelines were a translation of level 1 evidence in children, applied to adults. Access to tonsillectomy in the UK was governed by application of national guidance, which is predicated on a qualifying number of episodes of tonsillitis. NATTINA participants in the tonsillectomy arm reported, on average, fewer healthcare contacts, fewer sore throat days and higher QALYs than those in the conservative management arm. Within the UK, tonsillectomy is listed as a ‘procedure of limited clinical value’ (The Royal College of Surgeons of England. Procedures of Limited Clinical Value: Royal College of Surgeons Briefing. London: The Royal College of Surgeons of England; 2011). To the best of our knowledge, NATTINA is the first definitive trial to demonstrate that tonsillectomy performed according to the current UK national guidelines is effective for patients, and the probability of it being considered cost-effective is high. Guideline reassessment, in particular how guidelines translate into healthcare commissioning, is called for. How should practitioners and patients respond to these findings? We have identified communication issues at the primary–secondary care interface in our qualitative work. There is, therefore, a need to convert the findings of NATTINA into a practical decision support tool for patients and surgeons. Implications for research (in priority order) The top research priority to emerge from NATTINA is to determine the optimum timing of tonsillectomy in adults with recurrent acute tonsillitis. Work is required also to optimise metrics for disease burden severity, and to exploit the novel real-time data collection methods elaborated in NATTINA. There is also a need to better understand optimum treatment strategies, including oral steroids, for tonsillitis in primary care. Trial registration This trial is registered as ISRCTN55284102. Funding This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 12/146/06) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 27, No. 31. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Background Clinical uncertainty in primary care regarding the prognosis of children with respiratory tract infections contributes to the unnecessary use of antibiotics. Improved identification of children at low risk of future hospitalisation might reduce clinical uncertainty. A National Institute for Health and Care Research-funded 5-year programme (RP-PG-0608-10018) was used to develop and feasibility test an intervention. Objectives The aim of the children with acute cough randomised controlled trial was to reduce antibiotic prescribing among children presenting with acute cough and respiratory tract infection without increasing hospital admission. Design An efficient, pragmatic open-label, two-arm trial (with embedded qualitative and health economic analyses) using practice-level randomisation using routinely collected data as the primary outcome. Setting General practitioner practices in England. Participants General practitioner practices using the Egton Medical Information Systems® patient-record system for children aged 0–9 years presenting with a cough or upper respiratory tract infection. Recruited by Clinical Research Networks and Clinical Commissioning Groups. Intervention Comprised: (1) elicitation of parental concerns during consultation; (2) a clinician-focused prognostic algorithm to identify children with acute cough and respiratory tract infection at low, average or elevated risk of hospitalisation in the next 30 days accompanied by prescribing guidance, (3) provision of a printout for carers including safety-netting advice. Main outcome measures Co-primaries using the practice list-size for children aged 0–9 years as the denominator: rate of dispensed amoxicillin and macrolide items at each practice (superiority comparison) from NHS Business Services Authority ePACT2 and rate of hospital admission for respiratory tract infection (non-inferiority comparison) from Clinical Commissioning Groups, both routinely collected over 12 months. Results Of the 310 practices required, 294 (95%) were recruited (144 intervention and 150 controls) with 336,496 registered 0–9-year-olds (5% of all 0–9-year-old children in England) from 47 Clinical Commissioning Groups. Included practices were slightly larger than those not included, had slightly lower baseline dispensing rates and were located in more deprived areas (reflecting the distribution for practice postcodes nationally). Twelve practices (4%) subsequently withdrew (six related to the pandemic). The median number of times the intervention was used was 70 per practice (by a median of 9 clinicians) over 12 months. There was no evidence that the antibiotic dispensing rate in the intervention practices [0.155 (95% confidence interval 0.135 to 0.179)] differed to controls [0.154 (95% confidence interval 0.130 to 0.182), relative risk= 1.011 (95% confidence interval 0.992 to 1.029); p = 0.253]. There was, overall, a reduction in dispensing levels and intervention usage during the pandemic. The rate of hospitalisation for respiratory tract infection in the intervention practices [0.019 (95% confidence interval 0.014 to 0.026)] compared to the controls [0.021 (95% confidence interval 0.014 to 0.029)] was non-inferior [relative risk = 0.952 (95% confidence interval 0.905 to 1.003)]. The qualitative evaluation found the clinicians liked the intervention, used it as a supportive aid, especially with borderline cases but that it, did not always integrate well within the consultation flow and was used less over time. The economic evaluation found no evidence of a difference in mean National Health Service costs between arms; mean difference −£1999 (95% confidence interval −£6627 to 2630). Conclusions The intervention was feasible and subjectively useful to practitioners, with no evidence of harm in terms of hospitalisations, but did not impact on antibiotic prescribing rates. Future work and limitations Although the intervention does not appear to change prescribing behaviour, elements of the approach may be used in the design of future interventions. Trial registration This trial is registered as ISRCTN11405239 (date assigned 20 April 2018) at www.controlled-trials.com (accessed 5 September 2022). Version 4.0 of the protocol is available at: https://www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk/ (accessed 5 September 2022). Funding This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment (NIHR award ref: 16/31/98) programme and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 27, No. 32. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information. Plain language summary Coughs and colds (also known as respiratory tract infections) are the most common reason that children are taken to family doctors and nurses in primary care. These clinicians are not always sure how best to treat them and often use antibiotics ‘just in case’. There are now concerns that clinicians are using antibiotics too often, and that this is increasing the number of resistant bugs (bacteria that cannot be killed by antibiotics). We wanted to see if using a scoring system of symptoms and signs of illness to help clinicians identify children very unlikely to need hospital care as well as listening to parents’ concerns and giving them a personalised leaflet with care and safety advice, reduced antibiotic use. We recruited practices rather than patients, so did not need individual patient consent. The two main outcomes were the rate of antibiotics dispensed for children and number of children admitted to hospital for respiratory tract infections, using routinely collected data for 0–9-year-olds. We recruited 294 general practitioner practices, which was 95% of the total needed; 144 were asked to use the intervention and 150 to continue providing usual care (controls); only 12 practices subsequently withdrew (6 related to the pandemic). The average number of times the intervention was used was 70 per practice (by an average of 9 clinicians) over 12 months. There was no evidence that the antibiotic dispensing rate in the intervention practices differed from control practices. Further analyses showed an overall reduction in dispensing levels and intervention usage during the pandemic. The rate of hospitalisation for respiratory tract infection in the intervention practices was similar to the control practices. In the interviews, we found that clinicians liked the intervention and used it as a supportive aid during consultations, especially for borderline cases, rather than a tool to change prescribing behaviour. Scientific summary Background Respiratory tract infections (RTIs) in children are common and present major resource implications for primary care. Unnecessary use of antibiotics is associated with the development of antimicrobial resistance. Qualitative work from our National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) TARGET Programme for Applied Research in 2016 identified clinician uncertainty regarding children’s prognosis as a major driver of antibiotic prescribing and that improved identification of children at very low risk of future hospitalisation could increase confidence to withhold antibiotics. We developed an intervention that included: (1) eliciting carer concerns during consultation; (2) a clinician-focused algorithm to predict future hospitalisation for children with cough and RTI and (3) a carer-focused personalised printout recording decisions made at the consultation and safety-netting information. The intervention was not intended to replace but rather supplement clinical judgement. In the feasibility trial, we found a recruitment differential at baseline in that intervention children were significantly more unwell than those recruited to the control group. We also found that recruitment procedures and using a stand-alone tool increased consultation times by 5 minutes. Learning from this, we proposed a more ‘efficient’ study design. We recruited practices rather than individual patients via Clinical Commission Groups (CCGs) and the national NIHR Clinical Research Network (CRN) and rather than trawl through the practice notes to collect primary outcome data, we utilised routinely collected data by the National Health Service (NHS) and CCGs. We also took a ‘lighter touch’ to data collection using short baseline and follow-up questionnaires filled in by designated practice champion [general practitioner (GP), nurse, practice manager or pharmacist] and embedded the intervention within the practice system rather than as a stand-alone tool. We hoped that this would not only mitigate recruitment differential but would also be resource efficient. Objectives Our aim was to assess whether embedding a multifaceted intervention into general practice for children (aged 0–9 years) presenting with acute cough and RTI would reduce antibiotic dispensing (superiority comparison) without impacting (non-inferiority comparison) on hospital attendance for RTI. We included a qualitative study to explore the use of the intervention, how it was embedded into practice and whether it was used appropriately and an economic evaluation of a between-arm comparison of secondary and primary care costs from an NHS perspective. We also report on the barriers and facilitators of using an efficient design. Methods The CHIldren with Cough (CHICO) randomised controlled trial (RCT) was an efficient, pragmatic, open-label, two-arm (intervention vs. control) trial of children in England aged 0–9 years presenting with an acute cough and RTI. The study received ethical approval (ref: 18/LO/0345) on 14 November 2018. Recruitment of practices was via CCGs and CRNs, between October 2018 and October 2020. Inclusion criteria were GP practices using the Egton Medical Information Systems (EMIS®) patient record system (used in 56% of English practices) where the local CCG had agreed to provide primary outcome data and the practice consented to take part. Practices were excluded if they were participating in any antimicrobial stewardship activities during the study period (12 months) involving potentially confounding concurrent intervention studies or were merging or planning to merge with another practice. Randomisation of practices on a 1 : 1 basis was stratified by CCG and minimised for list size and previous dispensing rate in the 12 months before data collection was conducted by the independent Bristol Randomised Trials Collaboration (BRTC) unit. A practice champion was appointed at each intervention practice to distribute training materials within the practice, co-ordinate training of prescribing staff, encourage all clinicians to use the intervention appropriately and report from the EMIS® system how many times the intervention was used. Intervention practices were sent instructions including screenshots on how to install the intervention on the EMIS® system. E-mail support was offered to the practice champion to help implement this and encourage appropriate use of the tool. When a child was in the age range, the healthcare professional received a ‘soft’ (i.e. a reminder) pop-up on their screen asking if the child was presenting with RTI. The pop-up gave the option of opening the CHICO Intervention. The Intervention screen would also open if the healthcare professional input a RTI-specific EMIS® code during the consultation. The algorithm included seven predictors two of which (age of patient and history of asthma) were already available for automatic entry, the other five predictors (short illness duration, temperature, intercostal or subcostal recession on examination, wheeze and moderate or severe vomiting) were entered during consultation. The algorithm reported whether the child was at elevated, average or very low risk of hospitalisation in the following 30 days along with antibiotic prescribing guidance. The health professional also had the option to print a short personalised letter with safety-netting guidance for the carer. The intervention was used in practices over a 1-month period. The clinicians in practices randomised to the comparator arm were asked to treat children presenting with acute cough and RTI as they would normally. The co-primary outcomes for children aged 0–9 years over a 12-month period were the rate of dispensed amoxicillin and macrolide items prescribed, for all indications (superiority comparison) collected routinely by NHS Business Services Authority (NHSBSA) ePACT2 and the rate of hospital admission for RTI (non-inferiority comparison) routinely collected by CCGs. The denominator was those 0–9-year-olds registered at each practice. Baseline data surrounding the characteristics of the practice and follow-up data after 12 months were collected. A secondary outcome looking at the rate of accident and emergency (A&E) attendances for RTI was collected in a similar way to hospitalisations. A roll-out to three CCGs was performed initially to address any teething issues with the intervention, the internal pilot phase lasted 3 months and included a further four CCGs to help establish best practice for recruiting and communicating with practices before widening to the remaining CCGs. Both sample size calculations assumed 90% power and a conservative two-sided alpha of 0.025 to take account of the two co-primary outcomes, an intracluster correlation coefficient of 0.03 and an estimated coefficient of variation of 0.65 along with an assumption of 750 children aged 0–9 years registered per practice. A 10% difference in dispensing data and no more than a 1% difference in hospital admission yielded 155 practices per arm. All primary and secondary analyses were conducted on an intention-to-treat (ITT) basis. A full CHICO statistical analysis plan was developed and agreed by the Trial Steering Committee (TSC) and Data Monitoring Committee (DMC). Mixed models were used to account for the within- and between-CCG level variation, incorporating the latter as a random effect. A random-effects Poisson regression model was used to analyse both co-primaries by arm, including list size as the exposure and baseline rate as a covariate. All analyses were carried out in Stata 17.0 and the results were described in terms of ‘strength of evidence’ rather than significance. For the qualitative analysis, anonymised transcripts from interviews with clinicians (GPs and practice nurses) were checked for accuracy and then imported into NVivo Pro (version 10/11) using thematic analysis and the four normalisation process theory (NPT) constructs to develop themes across the data sets. For the economic evaluation, the comparison of between-arm costs used a two-way mixed-effect linear regression that accounted for the nesting of practices in CCG clusters. The primary economic analysis regressed total costs on arm and covariates for list size and dispensing rate, both of which were used for minimisation at randomisation. Results In 2018, there were around 200 CCGs in England, 110 were assessed as eligible (≥ 15 EMIS® practices), 52 consented to take part and 47 provided at least one practice. We also used all 15 CRNs in England to help with recruitment. Recruitment took 24 rather than 12 months continuing to October 2020 (due to slow response of some CCGs and impact of the COVID-19 pandemic). Of the 310 practices required, 294 (95%) were recruited (144 intervention and 150 controls) representing 336,496 registered 0–9-year-olds (5% of all 0–9-year-old children in England). Included practices were slightly larger and had slightly lower baseline dispensing rates, compared with practices not included from their CCG. They were also located more commonly in deprived areas reflecting the geographical distribution of practice postcodes nationally. Of the 294 practices, 12 (4%) subsequently withdrew (6 related to the pandemic). The two arms were well balanced with respect to baseline characteristics. There were four serious adverse events (three intervention, one control) reported, none related to the intervention. Across the 121 (84%) intervention practices that provided at least 1 month of intervention usage data, a total of 11,944 intervention uses were recorded {median 70 [interquartile range (IQR) 9–142])}. Twenty practices (17%) recorded zero usage over the 12-month period. The median number of users per practice was nine (IQR 3–16). Of these, 74% were GPs, 14% were nurses, 6% were office staff, 3% were other clinicians, 3% were locum GPs and 1% were pharmacists. The baseline and follow-up data collection periods spanned October 2017–October 2021 thus included the COVID-19 pandemic which began in the spring of 2020. Both the use of the intervention and antibiotic dispensing data followed the expected seasonal winter peak until the pandemic during which the intervention usage dramatically fell and seasonal pattern disappeared with a notable decrease in antibiotic dispensing during pandemic lockdowns. The main ITT analysis showed no evidence that the antibiotic dispensing rate in the intervention practices {0.155 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.135 to 0.179])} differed from the controls [0.154 (95% CI 0.130 to 0.182)] with a relative risk (RR) of 1.011 (95% CI 0.992 to 1.029); p = 0.253. On average, this translates into 15 amoxicillin/macrolide items dispensed a year, per 100 registered patients aged 0–9 years. The pre-planned per-protocol analysis produced strong evidence of increased dispensing in the intervention arm [0.166 vs. 0.154, RR = 1.052 (95% CI 1.029 to 1.076), p

Background Guided self-help has been shown to be effective for other mental conditions and, if effective for post-traumatic stress disorder, would offer a time-efficient and accessible treatment option, with the potential to reduce waiting times and costs. Objective To determine if trauma-focused guided self-help is non-inferior to individual, face-to-face cognitive-behavioural therapy with a trauma focus for mild to moderate post-traumatic stress disorder to a single traumatic event. Design Multicentre pragmatic randomised controlled non-inferiority trial with economic evaluation to determine cost-effectiveness and nested process evaluation to assess fidelity and adherence, dose and factors that influence outcome (including context, acceptability, facilitators and barriers, measured qualitatively). Participants were randomised in a 1 : 1 ratio. The primary analysis was intention to treat using multilevel analysis of covariance. Setting Primary and secondary mental health settings across the United Kingdom’s National Health Service. Participants One hundred and ninety-six adults with a primary diagnosis of mild to moderate post-traumatic stress disorder were randomised with 82% retention at 16 weeks and 71% at 52 weeks. Nineteen participants and ten therapists were interviewed for the process evaluation. Interventions Up to 12 face-to-face, manualised, individual cognitive-behavioural therapy with a trauma focus sessions, each lasting 60–90 minutes, or to guided self-help using Spring, an eight-step online guided self-help programme based on cognitive-behavioural therapy with a trauma focus, with up to five face-to-face meetings of up to 3 hours in total and four brief telephone calls or e-mail contacts between sessions. Main outcome measures Primary outcome: the Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, at 16 weeks post-randomisation. Secondary outcomes: included severity of post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms at 52 weeks, and functioning, symptoms of depression, symptoms of anxiety, alcohol use and perceived social support at both 16 and 52 weeks post-randomisation. Those assessing outcomes were blinded to group assignment. Results Non-inferiority was demonstrated at the primary end point of 16 weeks on the Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition [mean difference 1.01 (one-sided 95% CI −∞ to 3.90, non-inferiority p = 0.012)]. Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, score improvements of over 60% in both groups were maintained at 52 weeks but the non-inferiority results were inconclusive in favour of cognitive-behavioural therapy with a trauma focus at this timepoint [mean difference 3.20 (one-sided 95% confidence interval −∞ to 6.00, non-inferiority p = 0.15)]. Guided self-help using Spring was not shown to be more cost-effective than face-to-face cognitive-behavioural therapy with a trauma focus although there was no significant difference in accruing quality-adjusted life-years, incremental quality-adjusted life-years −0.04 (95% confidence interval −0.10 to 0.01) and guided self-help using Spring was significantly cheaper to deliver [£277 (95% confidence interval £253 to £301) vs. £729 (95% CI £671 to £788)]. Guided self-help using Spring appeared to be acceptable and well tolerated by participants. No important adverse events or side effects were identified. Limitations The results are not generalisable to people with post-traumatic stress disorder to more than one traumatic event. Conclusions Guided self-help using Spring for mild to moderate post-traumatic stress disorder to a single traumatic event appears to be non-inferior to individual face-to-face cognitive-behavioural therapy with a trauma focus and the results suggest it should be considered a first-line treatment for people with this condition. Future work Work is now needed to determine how best to effectively disseminate and implement guided self-help using Spring at scale. Trial registration This trial is registered as ISRCTN13697710. Funding This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 14/192/97) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 27, No. 26. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information. Plain language summary Post-traumatic stress disorder is a common, disabling condition that can occur following major traumatic events. Typical symptoms include distressing reliving, avoidance of reminders and feeling a current sense of threat. First-choice treatments for post-traumatic stress disorder are individual, face-to-face talking treatments, of 12–16 hours duration, including cognitive behavioural therapy with a trauma focus. If equally effective treatments could be developed that take less time and can be largely undertaken in a flexible manner at home, this would improve accessibility, reduce waiting times and hence the burden of disease. RAPID was a randomised controlled trial using a web-based programme called Spring. The aim was to determine if trauma-focused guided self-help provided a faster and cheaper treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder than first-choice face-to-face therapy, while being equally effective. Guided self-help using Spring is delivered through eight steps. A therapist provides a 1-hour introductory meeting followed by four further, fortnightly sessions of 30 minutes each and four brief (around 5 minutes) telephone calls or e-mail contacts between sessions. At each session, the therapist reviews progress and guides the client through the programme, offering continued support, monitoring, motivation and problem-solving. One hundred and ninety-six people with post-traumatic stress disorder to a single traumatic event took part in the study. Guided self-help using Spring was found to be equally effective to first-choice face-to-face therapy at reducing post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms at 16 weeks. Very noticeable improvements were maintained at 52 weeks post-randomisation in both groups, when most results were inconclusive but in favour of face-to-face therapy. Guided self-help using Spring was significantly cheaper to deliver and appeared to be well-tolerated. It is noteworthy that not everyone benefitted from guided self-help using Spring, highlighting the importance of considering it on a person-by-person basis, and personalising interventions. But, the RAPID trial has demonstrated that guided self-help using Spring provides a low-intensity treatment option for people with post-traumatic stress disorder that is ready to be implemented in the National Health Service. Scientific summary Background Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is a common mental health condition that may develop following exposure to traumatic events that involve threatened or actual death, serious injury or sexual violence. PTSD causes significant distress to those affected by it, often co-occurs with other physical and mental health conditions and is associated with a large economic burden. Face-to-face, trauma-focused psychological treatments (TFPT) have been found to be the most effective currently available treatments for PTSD and are recommended first line by treatment guidelines across the world. Unfortunately, the limited number of suitably trained therapists available to deliver TFPT in the National Health Service often prevents timely access to treatment and some people find accessing and fully engaging with face-to-face TFPT difficult for other reasons, including work commitments, travel and childcare. Guided self-help (GSH) provides an alternative approach to the delivery of treatment by combining the use of self-help materials with regular guidance from a trained professional and requires less therapist time than recommended face-to-face TFPT. GSH has been shown to be effective for other mental conditions and, if effective for PTSD, GSH would offer a time-efficient and accessible treatment option, with the potential to reduce waiting times and intervention costs. Objectives The main aim of the RAPID trial was to determine the likely clinical and cost-effectiveness of GSH using Spring, an internet-based programme based on cognitive behavioural therapies with a trauma focus (CBT-TF), for mild to moderate PTSD. RAPID also aimed to describe the experience of receiving GSH using Spring from the recipient’s perspective, and the delivery of GSH using Spring from the therapist’s perspective. The objectives were to determine if: GSH using Spring was at least equivalent in effectiveness and cost-effective relative to individual face-to-face CBT-TF for people with PTSD, as judged by reduced symptoms of PTSD and improved quality of life. GSH using Spring improved functioning and reduced symptoms of depression, symptoms of anxiety, alcohol use and perceived social support. Specific factors may impact effectiveness and successful roll-out of GSH for PTSD in the NHS. Methods RAPID was a multicentre pragmatic randomised controlled non-inferiority trial with assessors masked to treatment allocation. Individual randomisation was used. Economic evaluation was undertaken to determine cost-effectiveness and nested process evaluation to assess fidelity and adherence, dose and factors that may influence outcome (including context, acceptability, and facilitators and barriers, measured qualitatively). GSH using Spring was not expected to be more effective than face-to-face CBT-TF, and therefore, a non-inferiority design was chosen. Participants were recruited from NHS Improving Access to Psychological Therapy services based in primary care in England, and NHS psychological treatment settings based in primary and secondary care in Scotland and Wales. Wide eligibility criteria were used to ensure good external validity. Participants were aged 18 or over, had mild to moderate PTSD as their primary diagnosis, had regular access to the internet and gave informed consent to take part. Exclusion criteria were inability to read and write fluently in English, previous completion of a course of TFPT for PTSD, current PTSD symptoms to more than one traumatic event, current engagement in psychological therapy, psychosis, substance dependence, active suicide risk and change in psychotropic medication in the past 4 weeks. Participants were randomised to receive up to 12 face-to-face, manualised, individual CBT-TF sessions, each lasting 60–90 minutes, or to GSH using Spring. Spring is a manualised, eight-step online GSH programme based on CBT-TF. An initial meeting of 1 hour between the therapist and the person with PTSD is followed by four subsequent fortnightly meetings of 30 minutes, with four brief telephone calls or e-mail contacts between sessions. The primary outcome was the severity of symptoms of PTSD over the previous week as measured by the Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale for DSM-5 (CAPS-5) at 16 weeks post-randomisation. Secondary outcomes included severity of PTSD symptoms at 52 weeks, and functioning, symptoms of depression, symptoms of anxiety, alcohol use, and perceived social support at both 16 and 52 weeks post-randomisation. Resource use was also collected to support the health economic evaluation. Semistructured interviews were conducted with 19 participants and 10 therapists as part of the process evaluation, to gather perspectives of receiving and delivering the interventions, to examine underlying mechanisms and factors influencing future implementation. Results One hundred and ninety-six participants were randomised with 82% retention at 16 weeks and 71% at 52 weeks. There were no serious imbalances observed in the baseline data between the two groups. Non-inferiority (margin of 5 points) was demonstrated at the primary endpoint of 16 weeks on the CAPS-5 using the intention to treat principle [mean difference 1.0, 95% one-sided confidence interval (CI) (−∞, 3.9, non-inferiority p = 0.012)]. This was also the case for all secondary outcomes at this time point, except for client satisfaction that was inconclusive but in favour of CBT-TF. At 52 weeks post-randomisation, non-inferiority was shown for Multidimensional Scale for Perceived Social Support (MSPSS), Alcohol Use Disorders Test and GSES; non-inferiority was not shown for the other outcomes but the results, which were inconclusive, were in favour of CBT-TF. Further examination of the Impact of Event Scale-Revised (IES-R) longitudinal measurements indicated that while the GSH group maintained their reduction (improvement) in IES-R scores between the 16- and 52-week assessments, the CBT-TF group continued to improve at a slow rate over the same period. There were no subgroup effects that showed any evidence of difference between the interventions including gender (pre-specified), mode of data collection or assessments conducted after the introduction of the COVID-19 lockdown. Spring was cheaper to deliver than face-to-face CBT TF [£277 (95% CI £253 to £301) vs. £729 (95% CI £671 to £788)]. When total costs were included, Spring was £572 (95% CI £64.96 to £1080.14) cheaper and produced but derived fewer quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) compared to CBT-TF, −0.04 (95% CI −0.10 to 0.01). At a willingness-to-pay threshold of £30,000 per QALY gained, the probability of GSH being cost-effective was 29.74%. The process data provided evidence of acceptability of the overall trial methodology, although key points were identified for consideration in future randomised controlled design, especially concerning burden and impact of outcome measures on participants and how they are delivered and explained. Intervention acceptability was indicated for both GSH and CBT-TF interventions, although there was a preference for face-to-face treatment. Therapeutic relationship was an important factor highlighted in the acceptability of the interventions. Flexibility identified with GSH was seen as positive and some activities within Spring were described as more helpful than others. Conclusions Implications for health care GSH using Spring was found to be non-inferior to face-to-face CBT-TF at treating people with mild to moderate PTSD. Significant gains were maintained in the GSH using Spring group at 52 weeks but some ongoing improvements in the CBT-TF group appeared to result in largely inconclusive findings with respect to non-inferiority at 52 weeks. The additional benefits of GSH using Spring with respect to time, cost and convenience, and having another evidence-based treatment option could be argued as outweighing what appear to be minor differences at 52 weeks. The results of the RAPID trial should herald a step change in the approach of services to the provision of evidence-based treatment to people with mild to moderate PTSD. There is now an urgent need to make GSH using Spring available as a low-intensity treatment option for people with PTSD. Future research implications How best to effectively disseminate and implement GSH using Spring at scale, to maximise its impact, is a key research question. This includes identification of the specific skill set and competencies required by a guiding clinician to foster effective alliance and engagement, and the optimal level of training and supervision required for the provision of GSH using Spring. The optimal amount of guidance is unclear. The quantitative and qualitative results strongly suggest that the current number of facilitation sessions is right for most people but that some people could probably benefit with more. Research into the impact of increased flexibility in delivery and more personalised adaptations is desirable. Research is also required to understand the extent to which individuals may or may not be excluded from internet-based treatments due to language and literacy issues, and online access issues, and how best to address these. Trial registration This trial is registered as ISRCTN13697710. Funding This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 14/192/97) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 27, No. 26. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Background Rates of readmission are high following discharge from psychiatric inpatient care. Evidence suggests that transitional interventions incorporating peer support might improve outcomes. Peer support is rapidly being introduced into mental health services, typically delivered by peer workers (people with experiences of mental health problems trained to support others with similar problems). Evidence for the effectiveness of peer support remains equivocal, and the quality of randomised controlled trials to date is often poor. There is an absence of formal cost-effectiveness studies of peer support in mental health services. Objectives This programme aimed to develop, pilot and trial a peer support intervention to reduce readmission to inpatient psychiatric care in the year post-discharge. The programme also developed a peer support fidelity index and evaluated the impact of peer support on peer workers. Design Linked work packages comprised: (1) systematic review and stakeholder consensus work to develop a peer support for discharge intervention; (2) development and psychometric testing of a peer support fidelity index; (3) pilot trial; (4) individually randomised controlled trial of the intervention, including mixed methods process evaluation and economic evaluation; (5) mixed method cohort study to evaluate the impact of peer support on peer workers. The research team included: two experienced service user researchers who oversaw patient and public involvement; service user researchers employed to develop and undertake data collection and analysis; a Lived Experience Advisory Group that informed all stages of the research. Setting The programme took place in inpatient and community mental health services in seven mental health National Health Service trusts in England. Participants Participants included 590 psychiatric inpatients who had had at least one previous admission in the preceding 2 years; 32 peer workers who delivered the intervention; and 8 peer workers’ supervisors. Intervention Participants randomised to peer support were offered at least one session of manualised peer support for discharge prior to discharge and then approximately weekly for 4 months post-discharge. Main outcome measures The primary outcome for the trial was readmission (formal or informal) to psychiatric inpatient care (readmitted or not) within 1 year of discharge from the index admission. Secondary outcomes included inpatient and emergency mental health service use at 1 year post discharge, plus standardised measures of psychiatric symptom severity and psychosocial outcomes, measured at end of intervention (4 months post discharge). Data sources Service use data were collected from electronic patient records, standardised measures of outcome and qualitative data were collected by interview. Review methods We produced two systematic reviews of one-to-one peer support for adults in mental health services. The first included studies of all designs and identified components of peer support interventions; the second was restricted to randomised controlled trials and pooled data from multiple studies to conduct meta-analyses of the effects of peer support. Results Our systematic review indicated that one-to-one peer support improved individual recovery and empowerment but did not reduce hospitalisation. The main trial demonstrated that one-to-one peer support did not have a significant effect on readmission. There was no significant reduction in secondary service use outcomes at 1-year, or improvement in clinical or psychosocial outcomes at 4 months. Participants who received a pre-defined minimal amount of peer support were less likely to be readmitted than patients in the control group who might also have received the minimal amount if offered. Compared to care as usual, black participants in the intervention group were significantly less likely to be readmitted than patients of any other ethnicity (odds ratio 0.40, 95% confidence interval 0.17 to 0.94; p = 0.0305). The economic evaluation indicated a likelihood that peer support offered a reduction in cost in excess of £2500 per participant compared to care as usual (95% confidence interval −£21,546 to £3845). The process evaluation indicated that length and quality of first session of peer support predicted ongoing engagement, and that peer support offered a unique relationship that enables social connection. The impact study indicated that peer workers found their work rewarding and offering opportunities for personal growth but could find the work emotionally and practically challenging while expressing a need for ongoing training and career development. Limitations In the trial, follow-up rates at 4 months were poor, reducing confidence in some of our analyses of secondary outcome and in a wider societal perspective on our health economic evaluation. Conclusions One-to-one peer support for discharge from inpatient psychiatric care, offered in addition to care as usual to participants at risk of readmission, is not superior to care as usual alone in the 12 months post-discharge. Future work Further research is needed to optimise engagement with peer support and better understand experiences and outcomes for people from black and other ethnic communities. Study registration The systematic review is registered as PROSPERO CRD42015025621. The trial is registered with the ISRCTN clinical trial register, number ISRCTN 10043328. Funding This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Programme Grants for Applied Research programme (NIHR award ref: RP-PG-1212-20019) and is published in full in Programme Grants for Applied Research; Vol. 11, No. 8. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information. Plain language summary When people share similar experiences of mental health problems and provide each other with emotional or practical support this can be called peer support. In recent years peer support has been introduced into mental health services. The months after discharge from psychiatric hospital can be difficult for some people. There is research that suggests that peer support might be helpful for people at discharge. There is a lack of good quality trials of peer support in mental health services. There are no studies that tell us if peer support provides value for money. We developed new training for peer workers and a handbook guiding peer support for discharge. We tried this out in two mental health National Health Service trusts to check that we could deliver the peer support and collect the information we needed for our trial. We recruited 590 people from seven mental health National Health Service trusts while they were staying on psychiatric wards. Half of those people were randomly selected to receive peer support for discharge, and half to receive community mental health care only. We found that people offered peer support were just as likely to be readmitted to hospital in the year after they were discharged as people offered usual care only. We found that people who met their peer worker at least twice were less likely to be readmitted in the next year. Black people offered peer support were much less likely to be readmitted compared to people offered usual care than other people in the study (although numbers were small). Our results also suggested that cost of care could be slightly less for people receiving peer support. We interviewed some people who had been offered peer support who told us what they valued about peer support. We interviewed peer workers who told us the work was rewarding but could be challenging. Scientific summary Background Risk of self-harm, suicide and readmission is high in the months immediately following discharge from psychiatric inpatient care. There is some evidence that transitional interventions incorporating peer support improve outcomes, including reduced readmission rates. Peer support is rapidly being introduced into mental health services internationally, typically delivered by peer workers (PWs) (people with their own experiences of mental health problems trained to support others with similar problems). Evidence for the effectiveness of peer support in mental health services remains equivocal, and the quality of randomised controlled trials to date is often poor, with trials at risk of bias because of unclear randomisation and masking procedures and incomplete reporting of outcomes. Peer support interventions are often poorly described, including the support provided for PWs, and the mechanisms of peer support unclear. Health economic evaluations are absent from the literature. Objectives The aim of the programme is to manualise, pilot and trial a peer support intervention to enhance discharge from inpatient to community mental health care, significantly reducing readmissions and the associated cost of care. The detailed research objectives of the programme are: to refine an empirically and theoretically grounded model that explains how peer support impacts on outcomes for service users post-discharge to develop and manualise a peer support intervention to enhance discharge to develop an index to assess the fidelity of peer support interventions to conduct a high-quality randomised controlled trial of the intervention to establish the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a peer support intervention to enhance discharge to explore the impact on PWs of working in a peer support role. Methods A training manual for PWs and intervention handbook were developed in work package 1 (months 1–15). We produced two systematic reviews of one-to-one peer support for adults in mental health services. The first, until April 2015, included studies of all designs and was used to identify components of peer support interventions; the second, until June 2019, was restricted to randomised controlled trials and pooled data from multiple studies to conduct meta-analyses of the effects of peer support. In both searches we searched MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Embase, CINAHL and Cochrane databases (as well as grey literature for the review of components), using ‘peer’, ‘consumer’, ‘survivor’ or ‘prosumer’ adjacent to ‘support’, ‘supporter’, ‘provider’, ‘worker’, ‘specialist’, ‘consultant’, ‘tutor’, ‘educator’, ‘mentor’, ‘intervention’, ‘listener’, ‘mediator’, ‘counsellor’, ‘befriender’ or ‘therapist’ as search terms for peer support. Paper selection at both title and abstract, and full text stage was undertaken independently by two researchers, with data extracted to spreadsheets relevant to each review. Results for the first review were combined with consensus workshops with stakeholder panels to develop and refine the peer support for discharge intervention. We also developed and tested the appropriateness, inter-rated reliability and internal consistency of a peer support fidelity index (work package 2, months 7–24). The index was first tested in 20 peer support projects not involved in the trial, before being retested and then implemented at three timepoints in each trial site. We conducted an internal pilot of the intervention and trial procedures in two sites (work package 3, year 2 of the programme) before proceeding to full trial in seven sites (work package 4, years 3–5). Sites were inpatient and community mental health services in seven mental health National Health Service trusts in England. Participants were people admitted to psychiatric inpatient care who had at least one previous admission in the preceding 2 years (i.e. who were at increased risk of readmission), the PWs who were employed and trained at each site to deliver the intervention, and the PW co-ordinators (PWCs) who supervised PWs at each site. Participants randomised to peer support were offered a manualised peer support for discharge intervention and care as usual (CAU). Participants in the control group received CAU only (discharge summary sent to community or primary care mental health team who contacted participant within 1 week of discharge to plan ongoing care). The primary outcome for the trial was readmission (formal or informal) to psychiatric inpatient care (readmitted or not) within 1 year of discharge from the index admission. Secondary outcomes were number of voluntary admissions, involuntary admissions and total number of admissions, total number of days in hospital, time to first readmission, use of accident and emergency services for a psychiatric emergency (measured as number of episodes of liaison psychiatry contact) and number of contacts with crisis resolution and home treatment teams in the year post discharge, plus standardised measures of psychiatric symptom levels, subjective quality of life, social inclusion, hope for the future and strength of social network, measured at end of intervention (4 months post discharge). Analyses were conducted on an intention-to-treat (ITT) basis. We carried out a Complier Average Casual Effect (CACE) analysis of the primary outcome (where compliers were participants who had at least two PW meetings, at least one of which was in the community following discharge). The CACE was estimated with a two-stage estimation procedure. In the first stage, a logistic regression of treatment receipt regressed on randomisation was conducted. In the second stage, a Poisson regression of the outcome on treatment receipt was conducted. The analysis was adjusted for the same covariates as the ITT analysis. A bootstrap (1000 samples) was used to obtain bias corrected and accelerated confidence intervals (CIs). Subgroup analyses for the primary outcome were pre-specified: ethnicity (any black ethnicity, all other ethnicities); primary diagnosis at index admission (psychotic disorders, personality disorders, other eligible disorders); first language (English, other). Service use data were collected from electronic patient records (EPRs) at study site, standardised measures of outcome and qualitative data were collected by face-to-face interview by a member of the study team. Our primary economic analysis of total costs over 12 months (using EPR of mental health service use), allowing for cost of peer support, and the secondary cost-effectiveness analysis at 4 months [using self-reported quality of life to derive quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs)] were carried out from an NHS mental health service perspective. A wider ‘societal’ perspective was taken when analysing non-NHS mental health care costs over 4 months (using self-reported service use outside of mental health NHS care). All analyses were conducted on an ITT basis using generalised linear modelling (GLM) with a logarithmic link function. We conducted a mixed methods process evaluation as part of work package 4, alongside the trial. Quantitative analyses used regression models to explore pre- and post-randomisation predictors of engagement with the peer support intervention. In-depth qualitative interviews with a subsample of 39 trial participants and all 32 PWs who were involved in delivering the intervention explored their experiences of peer support and sought to elucidate and refine the change model underpinning the intervention. Interviews were undertaken by service user researchers and data analysed using a ‘co-production’ approach to integrate the full range of perspectives on the research team – clinical, academic and experiential – in interpretive workshops, producing an analytical framework that was then used to code the full set of qualitative interviews. Work package 5 was a mixed method, longitudinal cohort study which explored the impact of providing peer support on PWs (from month 31 until the end of year 5). PWs completed standardised measures of well-being and employment outcomes, and in-depth interviews at three timepoints. All data were collected by service user researchers, who played a key role in developing interview schedules, refining rating procedures for the fidelity index, and analysis and interpretation of qualitative interview data. Development of the intervention and all research procedures were informed by a Lived Experience Advisory Panel (LEAP), as well as the experiential knowledge brought by service user researchers and PWs on the research team. Results In the first (2015) systematic review we identified 97 studies (including 12 from grey literature) that contributed 44 potential components to the intervention development process. A total of 66 potential components were identified when combined with outputs of our stakeholder workshops. Through iterative rounds of consensus building and testing we developed and refined our peer support intervention, comprising a bespoke PW training programme and a detailed handbook guiding implementation. In the second (2019) review we identified 23 studies reporting 19 trials. We found that one-to-one peer support in mental health services has a small but statistically significant benefit for individual recovery [standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.22, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.42; p = 0.042] and empowerment (SMD 0.23, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.42; p = 0.020). There was no effect on clinical outcomes such as symptoms or hospitalisation; the risk of being hospitalised was reduced by 14% for those receiving peer support but was non-significant [risk ratio (RR) 0.86, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.13]. We developed a principles-based fidelity index that had good acceptability and psychometric properties. The index measures set-up, delivery and overall fidelity of peer support against four domains (principles): building trusting relationships based on shared lived experience; reciprocity and mutuality; leadership, choice and control; building strengths and making connections to community. In the trial, fidelity was good at set-up in all sites, while fidelity of delivery of peer support was lower in sites where PWs were employed in voluntary sector organisations outside of the NHS. The pilot trial indicated that progression criteria were met subject to a small number of actions to improve the rate of recruitment of participants. In the main trial we successfully recruited our target of 590 participants, and participant characteristics were well-balanced between groups. In the PW group, 136 (47.4%) participants were readmitted to psychiatric inpatient care within 12 months post-index admission, and 146 (50.2%) in the CAU group. The adjusted relative risk of readmission in the ITT analysis was 0.97 (95% CI 0.82 to 1.14; p = 0.6777), and the adjusted odds ratio (OR) was 0.93 (95% CI 0.66 to 1.30). In the CACE analysis, the relative risk of readmission according to the natural indirect effect (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.76 to 0.99) was lower than from the ITT analysis and was significant. In subgroup analyses (see Table 6), for patients of any black ethnicity the adjusted OR of readmission was 0.40 (95% CI 0.17 to 0.94), while for any other ethnicity the OR was 1.12 (95% CI 0.77 to 1.63; interaction p = 0.0305). There were no statistically significant differences between the groups in any of the secondary outcomes assessed at 4 or 12 months. Adherence to the intervention was assessable in 268 (91.2%) participants with a mean of 1.8 [standard deviation (SD) = 2.9] face-to-face contacts with a PW in hospital, 4.4 (SD = 4.6) post discharge. There was a total of 67 serious adverse events (SAE) reported in the trial (34 in the peer support group, 33 in the CAU group) from 51 participants (26 in the peer support group, 25 in the CAU group). One SAE in the peer support group, an incident of self-harm, was reported as related to the intervention. Number and type of SAE included 12 deaths, none of which were reported as related to the study. A cost analysis of mental health service contacts over a 12-month period following discharge from inpatient care showed that, adjusting for baseline covariates, exposure to peer support was associated with a reduction in mean total costs of £2631 (95% CI −£21,546 to £3845): this amounted to a 10% reduction in mean total costs over 12-month post hospital discharge compared to usual care (95% CI −31% to 15%). Given sampling uncertainty there was an estimated 82% probability that peer support was associated with lower total costs over 12 months (or a 18% chance that usual care was the lower cost alternative). Most of the cost advantage over follow-up was due to reductions in the cost of bed day utilisation. Over 4 months, and considering patient quality of life outcomes as well as cost, peer support was also found to be cost-effective from an NHS mental health service perspective. The expected QALY gains associated with peer support were marginal: a 0.002 QALY improvement per participant, equivalent to less than a single day in full health. Participants who were heterosexual were less likely to engage with peer support than gay, lesbian or bisexual participants, OR 0.3 (95% CI 0.08 to 0.87; p = 0.029). We found that length of first contact (in minutes) was positively associated with engaging with peer support, OR 1.02 (95% CI 1.00 to 1.04; p = 0.010), and participants who went on to engage with peer support experienced more relationship building activity in that first contact. A shorter period between allocation to peer support and discharge (in days) was also associated with engagement in the intervention, OR 0.99 (95% CI 0.98 to 1.00; p = 0.002). Our qualitative process evaluation largely supports our original change model, further elucidating the distinctive nature of the peer-to-peer relationship while indicating the role that PWs played in enabling people to build relationships and make connection to community. Choice and control over how people engaged with peer support was identified as an important mediator of good experience and outcomes of peer support. Peer worker well-being, job satisfaction, team working and burn out scores were close to or better than scores for appropriate norm populations throughout the study. There were small but significant drops in well-being, personal satisfaction and satisfaction with workload after 4 months in post, and a similar small increase in burn out, but these changes were not maintained at 12 months. Satisfaction with training and job prospects were lower at 12 months. Qualitative data largely confirmed these findings with PWs indicating that they found that peer support work could be emotionally and practically challenging for the first few months but was rewarding and offered opportunities for personal growth. Conclusions We conclude that peer support for discharge, offered to participants at risk of readmission, was not superior to CAU. Peer support should not be commissioned with the expectation that it reduces readmissions for this group, although some cost-saving based on fewer days in hospital is likely. Our trial findings reflect those of our systematic review, suggesting that one-to-one peer support in mental health services is unlikely to improve clinical outcomes or reduce hospitalisation. Further research is needed to: improve implementation in order to optimise engagement with peer support establish the impact of peer support on psychosocial outcomes understand and evaluate the impacts of peer support for people from different ethnic communities (and especially to optimise benefits for black people using mental health services) understand and evaluate the impacts of peer support for people from different clinical populations establish the construct validity of our fidelity index through use with larger samples better understand the ongoing training and support needs, and career development pathway for PWs. Study registration The systematic review is registered as PROSPERO CRD42015025621. The trial is registered with the ISRCTN clinical trial register, number ISRCTN 10043328. Funding This award was funded by the UK National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Programme Grants for Applied Research programme (NIHR award ref: RP-PG-1212-20019) and is published in full in Programme Grants for Applied Research; Vol. 11, No. 8. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information. This paper presents independent research funded by NIHR. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the UK National Health Service (NHS), the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care.

Background Heavy menstrual bleeding affects one in four women and negatively impacts quality of life. The levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system is an effective long-term treatment but is discontinued by many due to unpredictable bleeding, or adverse effects. The selective progesterone receptor modulator ulipristal acetate is used to treat symptomatic fibroids but long-term efficacy for the symptom of heavy menstrual bleeding, irrespective of presence of fibroids, is unknown. Objectives To determine whether ulipristal acetate is more effective at reducing the burden of heavy menstrual bleeding than levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system after 12 months of treatment in women with and without fibroids. We investigated mechanism of action of ulipristal acetate in a subset of 20 women. Design Randomised, open-label, parallel group, multicentre trial with embedded mechanistic study. Setting Ten UK hospitals. Participants Women with heavy menstrual bleeding aged 18 and over with no contraindications to levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system or ulipristal acetate. Interventions Three 12-week treatment cycles of 5 mg ulipristal acetate daily, separated by 4-week treatment-free intervals, or continuous levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system following allocation in a 1 : 1 ratio using a web-based minimisation procedure. Main trial outcome measures Primary outcome was quality-of-life measured by menorrhagia multi-attribute scale at 12 months. Secondary outcomes included menstrual bleeding and patient satisfaction. Impact on fibroid size, endometrial appearance and liver function was also collected. Mechanistic study outcome Cellular markers for endometrial cell structure and function, determined from endometrial biopsies; volume of uterus and fibroids and microcirculation parameters were determined from magnetic resonance images. Results Sample size was increased from 220 to 302 as a result of temporary halt to recruitment due to concerns of ulipristal acetate hepatoxicity. Subsequent withdrawal of ulipristal acetate and the COVID-19 pandemic led to a premature closure of recruitment, with 118 women randomised to each treatment and 103 women completing 12-month menorrhagia multi-attribute scale scores prior to this point. Primary outcome scores substantially improved in both arms, but at 12 months there was no evidence of a difference between those receiving three cycles of ulipristal acetate [median score category: 76–99, interquartile range (51–75 to 100), n = 53] and levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system [median score category: 76–99, interquartile range (51–75 to 100), n = 50; adjusted odds ratio 0.55, 95% confidence interval 0.26 to 1.17; p = 0.12]. Rates of amenorrhoea were much higher in those allocated ulipristal acetate compared with the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (12 months: 64% vs. 25%, adjusted odds ratio 7.12, 95% confidence interval 2.29 to 22.2). There was no evidence of a difference in other participant-reported outcomes. There were no cases of endometrial malignancy and no hepatotoxicity due to ulipristal acetate use. Mechanistic study results Ulipristal acetate produced a reversible reduction in endometrial cell proliferation, as well as reversible alteration of other endometrial cellular markers. Ulipristal acetate did not produce a reduction in the volume of the uterus irrespective of coexisting fibroids, nor an effect on uterine microvascular blood flow. Limitations The urgent safety measures and premature closure of recruitment impacted final sample size. Conclusions We found no evidence of a difference in quality of life between the two treatments, but ulipristal acetate was superior to levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system at inducing amenorrhoea. Ulipristal acetate currently has restricted availability due to concerns regarding hepatotoxicity. Future work There is a need to develop new, safe, effective and fertility-sparing medical treatments for heavy menstrual bleeding. The observed acceptability and effectiveness of ulipristal acetate warrants further research into the selective progesterone receptor modulator class of pharmacological agents. Study registration This trial is registered as ISRCTN 20426843. Plain language summary What is the problem? Heavy menstrual bleeding is a common condition that affects the lives of many women. A hormone-releasing coil, fitted inside the womb, is effective in making periods lighter but can make them less regular. A medicine called ulipristal acetate or UPA, taken as a pill, has been shown to reduce rapidly menstrual bleeding in women with large, non-cancerous tumours in the womb, known as fibroids. It was not known whether UPA is effective in women who have heavy periods but do not have fibroids of any significant size. What did we plan to do? To find out which treatment was better at controlling heavy periods, 236 women were enrolled in a clinical trial where they received either the hormone coil or UPA. The choice of treatment was made at random by a computer rather than the wishes of researchers or patients, to ensure a fair comparison. Participants completed questionnaires about their symptoms and life quality at intervals up to 1 year. Twice during the trial, medicines regulatory authorities raised safety concerns about UPA causing liver problems. This resulted in the introduction of regular blood tests. The second time, recruitment to the trial stopped early. What did we find? Both treatments improved the symptoms of heavy menstrual bleeding in the majority of women. We found no evidence that UPA was better overall after 1 year of treatment, compared with the hormone coil, although fewer women on UPA continued to have periods. Laboratory studies on samples taken from the lining of the womb showed temporary changes due to UPA, which disappeared after treatment stopped. What does this mean? Both treatments improve the symptoms of menstrual bleeding and general wellbeing. Because of safety concerns UPA is not available for all women with heavy menstrual bleeding and new, safer medical treatments are needed. Scientific summary Background Heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) is the most common gynaecological problem in women of reproductive age, affecting one in four women, and has adverse profound impact on health-related quality of life. Common causes of HMB include structural abnormalities such as uterine fibroids, adenomyosis and dysfunction of the endometrium. The levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) is a proven, effective long-term treatment but about one-third of women cease use by two years due to unpredictable bleeding, hormonal adverse effects or lack of effectiveness. Furthermore, fibroids can make the LNG-IUS less effective. Alternative medical options for HMB exist, but are either less effective or associated with unacceptable adverse effects. Surgical interventions are effective at inducing bleeding control and improving quality of life but are typically incompatible with future fertility. Effective long-term medical treatments for women with HMB are needed. A class of drugs called selective progesterone receptor modulators (SPRMs) have potential to provide an effective oral treatment for HMB. SPRMs bind with progesterone receptors, resulting in tissue-specific effects in both myometrial and overlying endometrial tissue as well as shrinking uterine fibroids. The SPRM ulipristal acetate (UPA) has been successfully used to treat fibroids, but we do not know how effective UPA is for the treatment of women with HMB who do not have fibroids. Furthermore, there are uncertainties regarding the mechanism and location of action of UPA, as well as its longer-term safety. SPRMs induce distinctive, non-physiological endometrial changes, which can be confused with endometrial hyperplasia. More recently there has been concern regarding the potential for UPA to cause drug-induced liver injury (DILI). Post marketing surveillance reports resulted in a temporary halt in UPA use in 2018 and 2020. Use of UPA has since been reinstated since January 2021, albeit in a restricted context, reflecting the paucity of existing alternatives for HMB. Given these uncertainties, we designed the UCON trial to evaluate the safety, tolerability and effectiveness of UPA on HMB and to understand its mechanism of action. Clinical objectives Primary objective: to determine whether UPA is more effective at reducing the burden of HMB symptoms than LNG-IUS after 12 months of treatment. Secondary objectives: Ascertain whether UPA use beyond 3 months’ and up to 12 months’ duration is associated with histological changes to the endometrium and, if so, whether this compromises safety. Ascertain whether UPA is more effective than LNG-IUS in relation to menstrual blood loss, sexual activity, generic quality of life, satisfaction with treatment, patient-reported adverse events, and compliance at 3, 6 and 12 months. Determine the response to UPA and LNG-IUS treatment difference in the presence of uterine fibroids in terms of (1) alleviation of HMB and (2) change in uterine/fibroid volume. Collect data on liver function in women taking UPA, once safety concerns were raised. Mechanism of action study objectives To understand how UPA causes a reduction in menstrual bleeding and uterine/fibroid volume in women with HMB, we determined whether UPA administration: Alters endometrial cell function (e.g., and not limited to, proliferation, apoptosis, expression of steroid receptors, tumour suppressors and inflammatory mediators). Reduces blood plasma flow in the endometrium, uterine myometrium and fibroid tissue. Alters the volume fraction of the extracellular matrix in these tissues. Reduces uterine and fibroid volume. Design This was a randomised, open-label, parallel group, multicentre trial with embedded mechanistic study. Methods Setting The trial recruited participants in 10 sites in NHS hospital settings across the UK between 2015 and 2020. The mechanism of action study was conducted solely at the Edinburgh site. Participants For the main trial, informed consent was sought from premenopausal women (aged 18–50 years) with self-reported HMB, no contraindications to LNG-IUS or UPA. Those with uterine size greater than equivalent 14-week size or with submucosal fibroids >2cm were excluded. Other exclusion criteria relating to use of other treatments and current health status were applied, including history of severe hepatic impairment. Screening and randomisation Participants were recruited in gynaecology clinics by research nurses who screened patient referral letters. Following consent, haemoglobin and circulating estradiol levels were assessed, clinical history elicited and transvaginal and/or abdominal ultrasound and endometrial biopsy were obtained if not previously performed. Following this, and confirmation of eligibility, randomisation was via a web-based central service based at Birmingham Clinical Trials Unit to allocate women in a 1 : 1 ratio using a minimisation algorithm. Screened patients in Edinburgh were offered the opportunity to participate in the mechanistic study. Interventions and follow-up Those allocated to UPA received three courses of treatment, each course comprising a daily 5-mg oral dose for 12 weeks followed by a four-week break. Those allocated to the LNG-IUS had it fitted in hospital or primary care. Participants allocated to UPA returned to hospital to collect their repeat prescription at 3 and 6 months, and may have been seen by a member of the care team if required. They were then seen in clinic at 12 months for ultrasound scan (USS) and haemoglobin/serum estradiol measurement. Those allocated to the LNG-IUS group attended USS at 12 months. Follow-up at interim time points was conducted by postal questionnaire. Those partaking in the mechanism of action study underwent magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) following randomisation and at the end of treatment cycles two and three. An additional endometrial biopsy was obtained at the end of treatment cycle two. Outcome measures Primary Condition-specific quality of life score as measured by the menorrhagia multi-attribute scale (MMAS) questionnaire at 12 months. Summary scores range from 0 (worst affected) to 100 (not affected). Secondary Condition-specific quality of life score as measured by MMAS at 3 and 6 months Menstrual bleeding (pictorial blood loss assessment chart)* Cycle regularity (ordinal four-point scale)* Duration of period (ordinal three option scale)* Pelvic pain during periods, intercourse and at other times (visual analogue scales; 0 = best outcome, 10 = worse outcome)* Uterine fibroid symptom and quality of life instrument (only given to women diagnosed with fibroids)* Sexual function (sexual activity questionnaire)* Generic quality of life (EQ-5D-5L)* Satisfaction with treatment outcome (five-point Likert scale) Participant rating of effect of treatment on HMB over 12 months (four-point Likert scale) Whether participant is willing to recommend the treatment to a friend (yes/no) Surgical intervention Adherence to trial treatments and reasons for changing treatment, as reported by the participant Serious adverse events and reactions Uterine volume, evidence of adenomyosis, presence of fibroids, largest fibroid volume, endometrial thickness, endometrial appearance, evidence of ovarian cysts at 12 months (USS) Endometrial biopsy at 12 months (UPA group only) Liver function tests, from 20 March 2018 every four weeks (UPA group only) Haemoglobin and serum estradiol at 12 months * assessed at 3, 6 and 12 months Mechanism of action A: Effects on cellular markers of endometrial steroid receptors and metabolising enzymes (governing local endometrial steroid [ligand] availability), cell proliferation, cell survival (apoptosis); detection of genes implicated in control of proliferation in endometrium; B: Effects on uterine/fibroid structure addressed by obtaining volume measurements for the whole uterus, and for the total volume of fibroids when present, by using high resolution structural MRI and stereology; and C: Uterine vascularity using dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI (DCE-MRI). Urgent safety measures In November 2017, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) issued an urgent drug alert for UPA due to a small number of reports of serious liver injury. A detailed investigation by the regulatory authorities was undertaken and it was found that eight reports of serious liver injury were reported in Europe from an estimated 740,000 women using UPA for uterine fibroids. Restrictions on prescribing UPA were subsequently issued and the trial sponsor implemented an urgent safety measure (USM) in February 2018, which halted recruitment. Those allocated UPA were allowed to complete their current course of UPA treatment but not commence any further outstanding courses. In addition, they commenced monthly assessment of LFTs (as well as a post treatment test approximately 2 weeks after the last course of UPA). In August 2018, the halt on UPA prescribing was lifted and recruitment to UCON resumed in October 2018 with additional safety measures in place, including exclusion of those with any history of liver disease [defined as levels of alanine transaminase (ALT) or aspartate aminotransferase (AST) of more than two times the upper limit of normal] and LFT monitoring as described above. UPA was stopped if women had an ALT or AST more than three times the upper limit of normal and a hepatology opinion was sought. In March 2020, the EMA temporarily suspended use of UPA a second time due to ongoing concerns regarding hepatotoxicity and a further USM was issued. All treatment courses of UPA were immediately stopped. In view of the second USM, the investigators, in discussion with the funder, chose premature closure of recruitment to the study but planned follow-up actions continued as per protocol. Statistical considerations The study was powered to detect a clinically useful difference in MMAS score (13 points) between the two groups at twelve months. To detect a difference of this size [0.5 standard deviations (SDs)] with 90% power (p = 0.05) would require 86 women in each group (172 in total). To allow for a 20% loss to follow-up or pregnancy, the sample size was inflated to 220 women. Following the initial USM, this figure was inflated to 302 women to ensure that there were adequate responses in the primary analysis population (defined below) to detect the same size of difference. The original planned primary analysis population comprised all participants, regardless of adherence to treatment, employing suitable regression models to estimate difference between groups. The enforced non-compliance as a result of the withdrawal of UPA had substantial implications for the validity of the data reported by participants. It was therefore necessary to redefine analysis populations, considering the restrictions that prevented women taking their courses of UPA might influence their responses and any other new potential biases that may be apparent in either group due to, for example, knowledge of the safety concerns around UPA. The primary analysis population would now comprise participants with questionnaire responses received prior to the first USM (12 February 2018), along with questionnaire responses from participants recruited following the study restart (18 October 2018) provided that the responses were returned before the second USM (17 March 2020). Results Main trial A total of 4471 women were approached for the study, with 236 consented and randomised, of whom 181 (77%) returned primary outcome data at 12 months (103 within the primary analysis population). Baseline data were comparable between groups; 92% were white, 34% had fibroids and 8% adenomyosis. In the primary analysis population, MMAS scores substantially improved in both arms, but at 12 months there was no evidence of a difference between the UPA [median score category: 76–99, IQR (51–75 to 100), n = 53] and LNG-IUS [median score category: 76–99, IQR (51–75 to 100), n = 50] groups (adjusted OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.26 to 1.17; p = 0.12). Rates of amenorrhoea where much higher in those allocated UPA compared with LNG-IUS at each time point (3 months: 56% vs. 5%, adjusted OR 29.3, 95% CI 7.37 to 116; 6 months 53% vs. 10%, adjusted OR 11.7 95% CI 3.78 to 36.0; 12 months: 64% vs. 25%, adjusted OR 7.12, 95% CI 2.29 to 22.2). There was no evidence of a difference in the other patient-reported outcomes although there was considerable uncertainty. In those with uterine fibroids, there were no changes in fibroid or uterine volume in either treatment group at 12 months. On endometrial biopsy, seven participants (8%) had evidence of progesterone receptor modulator associated endometrial changes (PAEC) at 12 months, although none was observed at a further 6 months post treatment; there were no cases of endometrial malignancy. Rates of serious adverse events were low, and no patients required admission to hospital for management of deranged liver function tests due to UPA use. Mechanism of action study Effects of UPA administration on the uterus: UPA produced a reduction in cell proliferation in the endometrium, as well as alteration of other local endometrial cellular markers (steroid receptor and steroid metabolising enzyme expression) creating a local endometrial oestrogenic environment. The effects on endometrial cellular markers were reversed upon withdrawal of UPA treatment. Stereological analysis in 19 patients showed that UPA did not produce a reduction in the volume of the uterus, irrespective of coexisting fibroids or adenomyosis. DCE-MRI in 15 patients showed that UPA appears not to have an effect on uterine blood flow. If adenomyosis was present in the uterus, there was a significant increase in plasma volume in the endometrium. However, one of the five women with adenomyosis also had fibroids. Effects of UPA administration on uterine fibroids: DCE-MRI studies showed that UPA produced an average reduction in plasma volume in 11 fibroids, which may be interpreted as being due to a reduction in extracellular matrix components. This finding was not supported by stereological analysis, which failed to show a reduction in the total volume of fibroids in eight patients. However, it should be noted that the number of subjects studied is small. Conclusions Both UPA and LNG-IUS alleviated the adverse impact of heavy menstrual bleeding on quality of life but we found no evidence of a difference between groups over 12 months. UPA was evidently superior to LNG-IUS in terms of inducing amenorrhoea. We observed no difference in reduction in the volume of the uterus, whether or not fibroids were present and no difference in change in the volume of fibroids was observed. Analysis of selected markers of endometrial cellular function demonstrated UPA modulation of the progesterone receptor, resulting in molecular and cellular alteration in steroid receptors within the endometrium, consistent with the development of a local (endometrial) oestrogenic microenvironment. Despite this, there is no evidence of pathological endometrial changes. We demonstrated that alteration in the endometrial microenvironment reverses on cessation of UPA treatment, a key factor for a medical treatment of HMB, particularly for those who wish to preserve fertility. UPA now has restricted availability due to concerns regarding hepatotoxicity. Findings from this study may offer insights into mechanism of action of other SPRM class members. New, effective and acceptable oral medical treatment options are needed to address an important unmet clinical need. Recommendations for research Further studies of medical treatments for HMB Developing other SPRMs, not associated with DILI Other hormonal/non-hormonal medical treatments for HMB Patient populations that encompass both the symptoms of HMB and underlying aetiologies, including structurally normal uterus, adenomyosis and small fibroids Study design with outcome measures impact on menstrual bleeding pattern, pelvic pain and impact on haemoglobin and iron-deficiency, as well as quality of life Qualitative studies to determine what are the most important outcomes to women who suffer HMB Study registration This trial is registered as ISRCTN 20426843. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation Programme and will be published in full in Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation; Vol. 10, No. 8. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Background There is debate whether the use of more arterial grafts during coronary artery bypass graft surgery provides advantages to the standard operation using the left internal thoracic artery plus vein grafts. We review data from the Arterial Revascularisation Trial to determine whether there is support for the multiple arterial graft hypothesis. Methods Patients undergoing coronary artery bypass graft for clinical reasons and who provided written informed consent were randomised to standard coronary artery bypass graft using the single internal thoracic artery or use of bilateral internal thoracic arteries. Additional vein grafts could be used. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality at 10 years and exploratory analyses were carried out to test the multiple arterial graft hypothesis. Results A total of 3102 patients were enrolled (1548 bilateral internal thoracic artery and 1554 single internal thoracic artery). Follow-up to 10 years for vital status was 98% complete. In the bilateral group, 14% of patients received a single internal thoracic artery only and use of radial artery grafts occurred in about 20% of patients in both groups. Aspirin was used in 81% of the patients, beta-blockers in 74%, statins in 90% and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers in 73%. At 10 years, death rates were 20.3% and 21.2% in the bilateral internal thoracic artery and single internal thoracic artery groups, respectively (hazard ratio 0.96, 95% confidence intervals 0.82 to 1.12; p = 0.62) and composite of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction or stroke 24.9% and 27.3%, respectively (hazard ratio 0.90, 95% confidence interval 0.79 to 1.03; p = 0.12). Exploratory analyses using the ‘as-treated’ approach indicate that outcomes were better in patients who received multiple arterial grafts (adding the right internal thoracic and/or radial arteries) compared with a single arterial graft. This effect appeared to be greater in patients with diabetes and those aged 70 years or less. Use of total arterial grafting without vein grafts may provide the best outcomes. Limitations The elevated cross-over rate between bilateral internal thoracic artery and single internal thoracic artery and the non-randomised use of radial artery grafts may have contributed to a loss of power to detect a difference in mortality between the two groups. Moreover, secondary analyses are prone to bias as they compare non-randomised groups. Conclusions The Arterial Revascularisation Trial is one of the largest long-term studies in cardiac surgery. The primary analysis did not show a mortality benefit for bilateral internal thoracic artery at 10 years, perhaps due to high crossover rates in the bilateral internal thoracic artery group and concomitant use of the radial artery. Secondary analyses suggest a mortality benefit for patients receiving multiple arterial grafts compared with single arterial graft with possible greater effects in patients with diabetes and separately in patients aged 70 years or above. The trial will follow patients to 15 years and the continuing Randomized Comparison of the Clinical Outcome of Single versus Multiple Arterial Grafts trial will further test the multiple arterial graft hypothesis. Trial registration This trial is registered as ISRCTN46552265. Funding This project was funded by the British Heart Foundation, the UK. Medical Research Council and the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation programme and will be published in full in Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation; Vol. 10, No. 7. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. Plain language summary Introduction Coronary artery bypass grafting is a surgical procedure aimed at improving blood flow in narrowed or blocked coronary (heart) arteries. The cardiac surgeon typically uses an artery from inside the chest wall (the internal thoracic artery) and veins from the leg to bypass the effected coronary arteries. Growing evidence suggests that using two internal thoracic arteries may be better than one. The main question in the Arterial Revascularisation Trial was ‘would the use of two internal thoracic arteries allow patients to live longer after coronary artery bypass graft than those who received a single internal thoracic artery?’ Methods The Arterial Revascularisation Trial was carried out in 28 hospitals in 7 countries. Patients scheduled to have coronary artery bypass graft and willing to participate in the trial were allocated at random (like tossing a coin) to grafting with either a single or a double internal thoracic artery. Additional vein or arterial grafts were used as considered necessary for that patient. Patients enrolled into the Arterial Revascularisation Trial were then followed-up for 10 years. Results A total of 3102 patients were enrolled in the trial; 1548 received bilateral internal thoracic artery and 1554 single internal thoracic artery grafts. Ninety-eight per cent of the patients were followed-up for up to 10 years and no statistical difference in survival was detected between the two groups at this timepoint (20.3% in the bilateral group vs. 21.2% in the single internal thoracic artery group). Additional analyses suggested that using more than one arterial graft, including the radial artery (from the arm), compared with using a single arterial graft, may be better, but this needs to be confirmed by further research. Limitations Some patients received a single internal thoracic artery when they should have received bilateral internal thoracic arteries, which could have reduced the efficiency of the trial to detect a difference between the two groups. Discussion The Arterial Revascularisation Trial is one of the largest long-term studies in cardiac surgery. This trial did not show that using two internal thoracic arteries during coronary artery bypass graft provides better outcomes for patients than using a single internal thoracic artery. Further results from the trial will be released upon completion of follow-up at 15 years. Scientific summary Objectives The Arterial Revascularisation Trial (ART) was a superiority trial aimed at comparing the outcomes of patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) with either a bilateral internal thoracic artery (BITA) or single internal thoracic artery (SITA). The main secondary questions were whether using multiple arterial grafting (MAG) was associated with improved clinical outcomes and whether additional factors influence the efficacy of MAG such as diabetes and age. Methods Patients with multivessel coronary artery disease (CAD) involving at least the left anterior descending artery and the circumflex artery undergoing CABG were included and randomised equally to BITA or SITA. Emergency patients (refractory myocardial ischaemia/cardiogenic shock) and those requiring single grafts or redo CABG were excluded. After surgery, patients were followed-up on annual basis. Based on power calculation, 2928 patients were needed to be enrolled to detect an absolute 5% difference in mortality between the two groups with 90% power at the 5% significance level. The primary outcome of the trial was all-cause mortality and the secondary outcomes were the composite of death from any cause, myocardial infarction (MI), or stroke (in a time-to-event analysis), rate of repeat revascularisation and safety outcomes (including bleeding and sternal wound complications). The primary research question used the log rank method to compare survival in the BITA and SITA groups based on the intention to treat principle and censored patients at 10 years of follow-up after the date of randomisation. Secondary analyses used the as-treated principle and applied propensity score-based methods as appropriate to reduce confounding. Results A total of 3102 patients were enrolled in the trial: 1548 received BITA and 1554 SITA. Complete follow-up data for the primary outcome were available for 98% of patients at 10 years. Aspirin was used in 80%, beta-blockers 74%, statins 90% and angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers in 71%. The death rate at 10 years was 20.3% in the BITA group and 21.2% in the SITA group [hazard ratio (HR) 0.96; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.82 to 1.12; p = 0.62] while the composite of all-cause mortality, MI or stroke occurred in 24.9% in BITA compared with 27.3% in SITA (HR 0.97; 95% CI 0.83 to 1.14; p = 0.12). In those randomised to BITA, 86% actually received BITA grafts while in the SITA group, 97.5% received SITA. Additional radial artery grafts were used in 19% of patients in BITA and 22% in SITA. In a secondary analysis exploring the effect of multiple (MAG) and total arterial grafting (TAG), there was a significant trend toward a reduction in 10-year mortality in the MAG and TAG groups compared with single arterial grafting (SAG) (test for trend = 0.04). TAG was associated with a reduction in all-cause death when compared with SAG (P = 0.03). The benefit of TAG was also confirmed for the composite endpoint including death, MI, stroke or repeat revascularisation (P = 0.02) compared with SAG. When investigating the effect of diabetes, MAG was associated with a survival benefit in both the diabetic and non-diabetic groups compared with SAG. Similarly, MAG was associated with lower rates of the composite endpoint of death, MI and stroke in the diabetic and non-diabetic groups. However, MAG was associated with higher rates of deep sternal wound infection compared with SAG in both the diabetic and non-diabetic groups. Patients with insulin-dependent diabetes receiving MAG experienced the highest absolute rate of sternal wound infection (9.6%). Use of BITA was found to be associated with higher rates of sternal wound infection. Limitations The elevated crossover rate between BITA and SITA and the non-randomised use of RA grafts may have contributed to a loss of power to detect a difference in mortality between the two groups. Moreover, secondary analyses are prone to bias as they compare non-randomised groups. Conclusions The ART has shown that is possible to run pragmatic long-term trials in cardiac surgery. Overall, the study has not shown that use of BITA is associated with reduced mortality compared to SITA. Secondary analyses support the potential benefit of MAG and TAG. More information is needed to understand the interaction of graft patency and clinical outcomes after CABG, and routine computed tomography coronary angiography may be a useful option. Trial registration This trial is registered as ISRCTN46552265. Funding This project was funded by the British Heart Foundation, the UK Medical Research Council and the National Institute of Health and Care Research (NIHR) Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation programme and will be published in full in Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation; Vol. 10, No. 7. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Background Acamprosate is an effective and cost-effective medication for alcohol relapse prevention but poor adherence can limit its full benefit. Effective interventions to support adherence to acamprosate are therefore needed. Objectives To determine the effectiveness of Medication Management, with and without Contingency Management, compared to Standard Support alone in enhancing adherence to acamprosate and the impact of adherence to acamprosate on abstinence and reduced alcohol consumption. Design Multicentre, three-arm, parallel-group, randomised controlled clinical trial. Setting Specialist alcohol treatment services in five regions of England (South East London, Central and North West London, Wessex, Yorkshire and Humber and West Midlands). Participants Adults (aged 18 years or more), an International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, Tenth Revision, diagnosis of alcohol dependence, abstinent from alcohol at baseline assessment, in receipt of a prescription for acamprosate. Interventions (1) Standard Support, (2) Standard Support with adjunctive Medication Management provided by pharmacists via a clinical contact centre (12 sessions over 6 months), (3) Standard Support with adjunctive Medication Management plus Contingency Management that consisted of vouchers (up to £120) to reinforce participation in Medication Management. Consenting participants were randomised in a 2 : 1 : 1 ratio to one of the three groups using a stratified random permuted block method using a remote system. Participants and researchers were not blind to treatment allocation. Main outcome measures Primary outcome: self-reported percentage of medication taken in the previous 28 days at 6 months post randomisation. Economic outcome: EuroQol-5 Dimensions, a five-level version, used to calculate quality-adjusted life-years, with costs estimated using the Adult Service Use Schedule. Results Of the 1459 potential participants approached, 1019 (70%) were assessed and 739 (73 consented to participate in the study, 372 (50%) were allocated to Standard Support, 182 (25%) to Standard Support with Medication Management and 185 (25%) to Standard Support and Medication Management with Contingency Management. Data were available for 518 (70%) of participants at 6-month follow-up, 255 (68.5%) allocated to Standard Support, 122 (67.0%) to Standard Support and Medication Management and 141 (76.2%) to Standard Support and Medication Management with Contingency Management. The mean difference of per cent adherence to acamprosate was higher for those who received Standard Support and Medication Management with Contingency Management (10.6%, 95% confidence interval 19.6% to 1.6%) compared to Standard Support alone, at the primary end point (6-month follow-up). There was no significant difference in per cent days adherent when comparing Standard Support and Medication Management with Standard Support alone 3.1% (95% confidence interval 12.8% to −6.5%) or comparing Standard Support and Medication Management with Standard Support and Medication Management with Contingency Management 7.9% (95% confidence interval 18.7% to −2.8%). The primary economic analysis at 6 months found that Standard Support and Medication Management with Contingency Management was cost-effective compared to Standard Support alone, achieving small gains in quality-adjusted life-years at a lower cost per participant. Cost-effectiveness was not observed for adjunctive Medication Management compared to Standard Support alone. There were no serious adverse events related to the trial interventions reported. Limitations The trial’s primary outcome measure changed substantially due to data collection difficulties and therefore relied on a measure of self-reported adherence. A lower than anticipated follow-up rate at 12 months may have lowered the statistical power to detect differences in the secondary analyses, although the primary analysis was not impacted. Conclusions Medication Management enhanced with Contingency Management is beneficial to patients for supporting them to take acamprosate. Future work Given our findings in relation to Contingency Management enhancing Medication Management adherence, future trials should be developed to explore its effectiveness and cost-effectiveness with other alcohol interventions where there is evidence of poor adherence. Trial registration This trial is registered as ISRCTN17083622 https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN17083622. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 27, No. 22. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. Plain language summary What is the problem? Many people who are trying to stop drinking alcohol can find it difficult to remain alcohol free. There is a medication called acamprosate (Campral) that can reduce cravings thereby increasing the likelihood of abstinence. However, some people have trouble taking the right amount of acamprosate tablets needed every day at the right time, preferably at mealtimes. This means the medication is not as effective. We have tested some new ways to help support people taking acamprosate. What did we do? We tested three different strategies to find the best way to support people taking acamprosate. We recruited 739 people aged 18 and over who were receiving alcohol treatment to stop drinking and were taking acamprosate. We randomly allocated these people to three groups. The first was Standard Support, the usual support people receive when taking acamprosate. The second group received Standard Support plus Medication Management. This consisted of 12 telephone calls over 6 months with a trained pharmacist to discuss the importance of taking the right amount of the medication, how the medication works and strategies to help people take the medication correctly. The third group received Standard Support, Medication Management and Contingency Management. This involved giving people shopping vouchers for participating with Medication Management calls. The maximum value of vouchers per person was £120. What did we find out? People who were in the group receiving Medication Management and Contingency Management took a greater number of acamprosate tablets. We also found that Medication Management plus Contingency Management was more cost-effective; there were greater gains in health with a smaller cost per person compared to Standard Support alone. This shows that there is likely to be a benefit to patients of Medication Management plus Contingency Management for supporting people taking acamprosate. Scientific summary Background Alcohol is a significant risk factor for morbidity and mortality. In the UK there has been an increase in harm related to alcohol while also a reduction in funding to public health budgets, including alcohol services. While some individuals do successfully complete alcohol treatment, the majority will undergo frequent episodes of relapse. Providing effective treatment can reduce relapse rates and associated harms thus having a positive impact on cost-effectiveness. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) recommends acamprosate in combination with psychological intervention as a first-line treatment for relapse prevention in alcohol dependence, however, acamprosate adherence poses a problem for its effectiveness in clinical practice. The reasons for non-adherence are complex and often due to multiple influences. Currently there is insufficient evidence as to which forms of intervention are effective in increasing adherence. Psychosocial interventions to support medication adherence have the potential to promote positive beliefs about medication and any concerns. Medication Management (MM) is a psychosocial intervention which aims to improve medication and treatment adherence by providing education, support, and practical advice about drinking behaviour and medication. There has also been an increasing focus on extending the role of the community pharmacist and the delivery of MM to improve medication adherence compliments this expanding role. Engagement in psychological interventions and retention in treatment is often poor in alcohol dependence but there is evidence that Contingency Management (CM) improves engagement and retention in substance use disorder treatment. There is currently limited evidence of its effectiveness within alcohol treatment but if shown to be effective it has the potential to also be adopted within the NHS and community pharmacies. Objectives Our aim was to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of adjunctive MM with and without CM in improving adherence to acamprosate for relapse prevention in alcohol dependence. To conduct a definitive three-arm, randomised controlled trial (RCT) of the effectiveness of MM with and without CM compared to Standard Support (SS) alone in enhancing adherence to acamprosate in alcohol dependence relapse prevention. To estimate the cost-effectiveness of MM with and without CM compared to SS alone in enhancing adherence to acamprosate in alcohol dependence relapse prevention. To assess the impact of adherence to acamprosate for alcohol dependence relapse prevention on abstinence and reduced alcohol consumption. Methods Trial design This was a three-arm, parallel-group, pragmatic RCT, which began with an internal pilot phase to demonstrate recruitment, randomisation and interventions could be implemented as planned. Eligibility and recruitment Participants presenting to alcohol services in one of the trial sites (London, Southampton, Birmingham, Yorkshire and Humber) who met the trial inclusion criteria were recruited via service staff. Participants Inclusion criteria were: (1) adults, aged 18 years and over; (2) an International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, Tenth Revision, diagnosis of alcohol dependence; (3) abstinent from alcohol at baseline assessment; (4) in receipt of a prescription of acamprosate; and (5) willing and able to provide informed consent. Exclusion criteria were: (1) a diagnosis of a severe physical/mental illness likely to preclude active participation in treatment or follow-up, (2) unable to understand verbal English at a level necessary to engage in the intervention and follow-up and (3) concurrent dependence on an illicit substance (other than cannabis). Randomisation and interventions Participants were randomised in a 2 : 1 : 1 ratio to SS, SS + MM or SS + MM + CM using a stratified random permuted block method using a remote system. Participants and researchers were not blind to treatment allocation. SS typically comprised of monthly dispensing of prescribed acamprosate, monthly monitoring of the service user for 3 months by the specialist alcohol service, and then returned to the care of their GP for monthly monitoring in accordance with NICE guidelines and current clinical NHS clinical practice. SS + MM participants followed the same care pathway as those in SS, with the addition of MM delivered by a central telephone support service by trained pharmacists. MM was delivered once a week for the first 6 weeks, reducing to once a fortnight for the following 6 weeks, and then monthly for 3 months. SS + MM + CM participants followed the same care pathway as those in the SS + MM arm but with the addition of CM. Incentives in the form of vouchers were provided to reinforce attendance at MM sessions, up to a total of £120. Outcomes The primary outcome measure was the self-reported per cent of medication taken as prescribed during the 6-month target phase of prescribing, post randomisation. Data collection Data were collected at baseline, 2, 4, 6 and 12 months. Following an amendment, the 12-month follow-up was removed to maximise participant recruitment, and the recruitment period was extended without extending the trial end date. Data that had been collected at the 12-month follow-up were still included in the trial analysis plan. The primary outcome was collected at the 6-month follow-up. Sample size The sample size aimed to detect a clinically important effect size difference of 0.3, about 13% difference in per cent adherence. In order to make the study cost-efficient, we proposed to allocate twice as many to the SS group than to the SS + MM and SS + MM + CM groups. With power at 80%, alpha of 0.05 and a two-sided test, this required 524 to be followed up at the primary end point, 262 in the SS group and 131 in each of the other groups. We anticipated a loss to follow-up at month 6 of 30% and inflated the required sample at baseline to 748 to account for this. Sample sizes were calculated using Stata 12 (StataCorp LP, College Station, TX, USA). Statistical methods The primary analysis was an analysis by treatment allocated (ATA) and was based on all available data for participants who were randomised, irrespective of whether they complied with their allocation or not. The primary analysis was based on the ATA. Secondary analyses examined treatment effects under different scenarios for compliance with allocation/treatment: complier average causal effects (CACE). Two scenarios of compliance were defined in this trial. The first compliance for those in the SS + MM and SS + MM + CM group was defined as adhering to at least 50% of the MM calls. In the second, the threshold was increased to 100%. Both scenarios are modelled in the analysis. We considered missing data as being missing at random (MAR) or missing not at random (MNAR). We conducted a multiple imputation to address MAR and a sensitivity analysis to address MNAR. Fractional regression was conducted to model the relationship between pre-randomisation factors and per cent adherence to acamprosate and per cent days abstinent from alcohol at month 6. Interaction terms with treatment allocation were included in the model and a significance level of 0.1 was used as a threshold to determine which variables were maintained in the final model reported. Baseline variables included initially in the model include age, gender, marital status, ethnicity, employment status, number of children, age of first drink, weekly and daily drinking, frequency and quantity of alcohol consumption, severity of alcohol dependence, alcohol urges and alcohol-related problems. This analysis was augmented with an additional analysis for the SS + MM and SS + MM + CM groups where the same dependent variable was assessed with the same independent variables with the addition of therapeutic alliance. Method of economic evaluation The primary economic analysis was a cost-utility analysis where outcomes were expressed as quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), as recommended by NICE. A secondary analysis explored cost-effectiveness in terms of the primary clinical outcome which was adherence to relapse prevention medication. The primary economic perspective was the NHS and personal social services (NHS/PSS) perspective preferred by NICE. The primary time horizon of the economic analyses using both QALYs and relapse medication adherence was the 6-month follow-up, consistent with the primary clinical analysis. A secondary analysis was carried out at the 12-month follow-up using QALYs. The primary economic outcome was QALYs calculated using the EuroQol-5 Dimensions, a five-level version measure of health-related quality-of-life scores at baseline, 6- and 12-month follow-ups. The primary economic analysis was composed of two separate comparisons: (1) SS + MM + CM versus SS alone; and (2) SS + MM versus SS alone, both at 6 months post randomisation, and assessed cost-effectiveness in terms of cost per QALY using the EuroQol-5 Dimensions measure of quality of life. Two secondary economic evaluations were carried out, a cost-utility analysis at 12 months post randomisation and a cost-effectiveness analysis using adherence to relapse medication which was the primary clinical outcome. Cost-effectiveness was explored using incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (difference in mean cost divided by difference in mean effect) and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves (CEACs), which show the probability that SS + MM + CM or SS + MM are cost-effective compared to SS alone for different levels of willingness to pay for improvements in outcome. Sensitivity analyses were carried out to test the impact of varying methods and assumptions on the relative cost-effectiveness of the interventions being compared. We planned three sensitivity analyses: (1) a broader analytical perspective to include the cost of crime (which was not completed as no crimes were reported), (2) a complete case analysis for comparison with the results that used multiple imputation for missing data and (3) a cost-utility analysis using QALYs calculated from EuroQol-5 Dimensions, three-level version tariffs. Results A total of 1459 potential participants were approached of whom 1019 (70%) were assessed. Of these 739 (73%) were eligible and consented to participate in the study. Allocation was in the ratio of 2 : 1 : 1, 372 (50%) were allocated to SS, 182 (25%) to SS + MM and 185 (25%) to SS + MM + CM. At the primary end point, 6 months post randomisation, 518 (70%) were successfully followed up with 255 (68.5%) allocated to SS, 122 (67.0%) to SS + MM and 141 (76.2%) to SS + MM + CM. There were no serious adverse events related to the trial interventions reported. The mean difference in per cent adherence to acamprosate at month 6 between those allocated to SS and SS + MM + CM versus SS was 10.6% [95% confidence interval (CI) 19.6% to 1.6%]; this difference was statistically significant. When the SS + MM group was compared to SS alone, the SS + MM group had a lower per cent days adherent than the SS group, mean difference 3.1% (95% CI 12.8% to −6.5%); this was not significant. A similar non-significant finding was seen when we compared the SS + MM and SS + MM + CM groups, mean difference 7.9% (95% CI 18.7% to −2.8%). Our secondary analysis included per cent days abstinent from alcohol at month 6. The ATA found differences favouring both intervention groups over SS alone but neither of these was significant. When a CACE analysis was conducted using scenario 2, both intervention groups had a significantly greater per cent days abstinent than SS alone. This analysis also highlighted the relationship between adherence to acamprosate and better outcomes, something additionally highlighted by a significant correlation between adherence to acamprosate and increased per cent days abstinent at month 6. CACE analysis: Under scenario 1, 50% adherence, the mean difference in per cent adherence increases from 10.6% (95% CI 19.6 to 1.62) to 12.4% (95% CI 17.8% to 7.1%) in the SS + MM + CM versus SS comparison, indicating that at 50% compliance those allocated to SS + MM + CM have a mean of 12.44% more adherence to acamprosate at month 6 than those allocated to SS alone. When comparing the SS + MM versus the SS group, a previous non-significant difference 3.14% (95% CI 12.8% to −6.5%) becomes a significant difference of 13.2% (25.4–1.15%). Under scenario 2, the differences are larger in magnitude, the SS + MM + CM group having 22.2% (95% CI 29.7% to 14.7%) more adherent days than the SS group alone. At the same time, the magnitude of difference is larger for the SS + MM versus SS comparison 31.8% (95–60.5% vs. 3.10%), although this comparison is based on a small number of participants, 20, and should be interpreted with caution. For SS + MM + CM versus SS, the primary economic analysis at 6-month follow-up using QALYs, the secondary economic analysis at 6-month follow-up using medication adherence and the economic modelling over a 20-year time horizon using QALYs all found SS + MM + CM to dominate SS (better outcomes at lower cost). At 12-month follow-up, although SS + MM + CM was not dominant, it generated more QALYs at an additional cost that was below the NICE cost per QALY threshold. CEACs also showed there was a higher probability of SS + MM + CM being cost-effective compared to SS alone in all analyses and at all time points. For SS + MM versus SS, at 6- and 12-month follow-up and when modelled over 20 years, SS + MM achieved better outcomes at higher cost compared to SS. In terms of cost-effectiveness, SS + MM was not found to be cost-effective at 6-month follow-up but had a higher probability of being cost-effective compared to SS at both the 12-month follow-up (using the higher £30,000 per QALY NICE threshold) and when modelled over 20 years (over the full £20,000–30,0000 cost per QALY threshold). Conclusions When comparing SS + MM + CM versus SS alone, we observed a significantly higher per cent adherence to acamprosate in the SS + MM + CM group, and the differences were of the magnitude that would indicate a clinically important difference. Differences were also observed when comparing SS + MM versus SS and SS + MM + CM versus SS + MM, but these were not significant. We explored how robust these findings were to assumptions about the nature of any missing data and we explored a missing data imputation model to explore the impact of data that may be MAR and a sensitivity analysis to explore data that may not be MAR. Neither of these analyses found any significant deviation from the analysis based on observed values, we can be confident that our findings from the ATA analysis are robust. To explore the effect of compliance to MM we conducted a CACE analysis using two scenarios of compliance, 50% and 100%. In both scenarios, we found greater benefits associated with SS + MM + CM and SS + MM versus SS alone and these benefits were significant and clinically important. There were several limitations to the current trial that should be taken into consideration. The trial’s primary outcome measure changed substantially due to data collection difficulties and therefore relied on a measure of self-reported adherence. A lower than anticipated follow-up rate at 12 months may have lowered the statistical power to detect differences in the secondary analyses, although the primary analysis was not impacted. The results of the primary economic analysis at the 6-month follow-up point suggest that MM was only cost-effective when supported by incentives to encourage support session uptake. This finding was heavily influenced by lower total costs in the SS + MM + CM group as a result of lower use of residential rehabilitation facilities compared to both SS + MM and SS alone, which may be related to the significantly higher medication adherence seen in the CM group. Over the medium (12 months) and longer term (20 years), SS + MM + CM remained cost-effective compared to SS and there was a higher probability of SS + MM being cost-effective compared to SS. These results support the addition of MM to SS for alcohol dependence, with or without CM. However, the economic benefit was stronger when CM was included. Trial registration This trial is registered as ISRCTN17083622 https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN17083622. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 27, No. 22. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Background Behavioural therapy for tics is difficult to access, and little is known about its effectiveness when delivered online. Objective To investigate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of an online-delivered, therapist- and parent-supported therapy for young people with tic disorders. Design Single-blind, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial, with 3-month (primary end point) and 6-month post-randomisation follow-up. Participants were individually randomised (1 : 1), using on online system, with block randomisations, stratified by site. Naturalistic follow-up was conducted at 12 and 18 months post-randomisation when participants were free to access non-trial interventions. A subset of participants participated in a process evaluation. Setting Two hospitals (London and Nottingham) in England also accepting referrals from patient identification centres and online self-referrals. Participants Children aged 9–17 years (1) with Tourette syndrome or chronic tic disorder, (2) with a Yale Global Tic Severity Scale-total tic severity score of 15 or more (or > 10 with only motor or vocal tics) and (3) having not received behavioural therapy for tics in the past 12 months or started/stopped medication for tics within the past 2 months. Interventions Either 10 weeks of online, remotely delivered, therapist-supported exposure and response prevention therapy (intervention group) or online psychoeducation (control). Outcome Primary outcome: Yale Global Tic Severity Scale-total tic severity score 3 months post-randomisation; analysis done in all randomised patients for whom data were available. Secondary outcomes included low mood, anxiety, treatment satisfaction and health resource use. Quality-adjusted life-years are derived from parent-completed quality-of-life measures. All trial staff, statisticians and the chief investigator were masked to group allocation. Results Two hundred and twenty-four participants were randomised to the intervention (n = 112) or control (n = 112) group. Participants were mostly male (n = 177; 79%), with a mean age of 12 years. At 3 months the estimated mean difference in Yale Global Tic Severity Scale-total tic severity score between the groups adjusted for baseline and site was −2.29 points (95% confidence interval −3.86 to −0.71) in favour of therapy (effect size −0.31, 95% confidence interval −0.52 to −0.10). This effect was sustained throughout to the final follow-up at 18 months (−2.01 points, 95% confidence interval −3.86 to −0.15; effect size −0.27, 95% confidence interval −0.52 to −0.02). At 18 months the mean incremental cost per participant of the intervention compared to the control was £662 (95% confidence interval −£59 to £1384), with a mean incremental quality-adjusted life-year of 0.040 (95% confidence interval −0.004 to 0.083) per participant. The mean incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained was £16,708. The intervention was acceptable and delivered with high fidelity. Parental engagement predicted child engagement and more positive clinical outcomes. Harms Two serious, unrelated adverse events occurred in the control group. Limitations We cannot separate the effects of digital online delivery and the therapy itself. The sample was predominately white and British, limiting generalisability. The design did not compare to face-to-face services. Conclusion Online, therapist-supported behavioural therapy for young people with tic disorders is clinically and cost-effective in reducing tics, with durable benefits extending up to 18 months. Future work Future work should compare online to face-to-face therapy and explore how to embed the intervention in clinical practice. Trial registration This trial is registered as ISRCTN70758207; ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03483493). The trial is now complete. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Technology Assessment programme (project number 16/19/02) and will be published in full in Health and Technology Assessment; Vol. 27, No. 18. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. Plain language summary It can be difficult for children and young people with tics to access therapy. This is because there are not enough trained tic therapists. Online remote behavioural intervention for tics was a clinical trial to see whether an online platform that delivered two different types of interventions could help tics. One intervention focused on techniques to control tics; this type of therapy is called exposure and response prevention. The other intervention was psychoeducation, where participants learned about the nature of tics but not how to control them. The online remote behavioural intervention for tics interventions also involved help from a therapist and support from a parent. Participants were aged 9–17 years with Tourette syndrome/chronic tic disorder and were recruited from 16 clinics, two study sites (Nottingham and London) or via online self-referral. All individuals who were eligible for the online remote behavioural intervention for tics trial were randomised in a 50/50 split by researchers who were unaware of which treatment was being given. Participants received either 10 weeks of online exposure and response prevention or 10 weeks of online psychoeducation. A total of 224 children and young people participated: 112 allocated to exposure and response prevention and 112 to psychoeducation. Tics decreased more in the exposure and response prevention group (16% reduction) than in the psychoeducation group (6% reduction) 3 months after treatment. This difference is considered a clinically important difference in tic reduction. The treatment continued to have a positive effect on tic symptoms at 6, 12 and 18 months, showing that the effects are durable. This was achieved with minimal therapist involvement. The cost of online exposure and response prevention to treat young people with tics within this study was less when compared to the cost of face-to-face therapy. The results show that exposure and response prevention is an effective behavioural therapy for tics in this specific patient group. Delivering exposure and response prevention online with minimal therapist contact can be a successful and cost-effective treatment to improve access to behavioural therapy. Scientific summary Background Tic disorders including Tourette syndrome and chronic tic disorders are common conditions that affect approximately 1% of the population in the UK. Young people with tics often report substantial impairment, thus it is important that they have access to evidence-based treatment. Face-to-face behavioural therapy (BT) such as exposure and response prevention (ERP) may be offered to some young people. However, due to a lack of trained therapists, there are often difficulties accessing BT, and there is a better need to understand the clinical and cost-effectiveness of the online delivery of such therapy. Objectives The primary objective of this study was to evaluate the clinical effectiveness of therapist-guided, parent-assisted, internet-based ERP BT for tics in young people with tic disorders compared to online psychoeducation. Secondary objectives included (1) optimising the design of the intervention, (2) undertaking an internal pilot, (3) evaluating cost-effectiveness, (4) establishing whether the efficacy is maintained longer term, (5) understanding the mechanisms of impact of the intervention and (6) identifying barriers to implementation. Methods We conducted an individually randomised (1 : 1 ratio), multicentre trial, with an internal pilot and embedded process evaluation. Participants were assigned to either receive online, remotely delivered, therapist- and parent-supported ERP for tics or online, remotely delivered, therapist- and parent-supported psychoeducation for tics. Participants were recruited from the two study sites, 16 patient identification centres in England or could self-refer online via the study webpage or via Tourettes Action (a national charity for tics). The inclusion criteria were age between 9 and 17 years, with tics assessed on the Yale Global Tic Severity Scale (YGTSS), able to provide written informed consent (parental consent for children aged < 16 years) and with a suitable device they could use to access the internet. Exclusion criteria included receiving a therapy for tics in the past 12 months, starting or stopping tic medication within the past 2 months and intellectual disability/substance use/anorexia nervosa/psychosis/suicidality, moderate/severe intellectual disability, risk to self or others or parent or young person unable to speak or read/write English. All potential participants attended a screening/baseline appointment at one of the two study centres. Participants who were eligible and consented were randomised into one of two study groups. In the intervention group participants received 10 weeks of the remotely delivered, therapist-guided ERP behaviour therapy. In the control group participants received 10 weeks of remotely delivered, therapist-guided psychoeducation about tics. Participants completed measures at the mid-treatment point (5 weeks) and at 3 and 6 months (this formed phase 1, per-protocol design). For phase 2 (a naturalist design), follow-up measures were obtained at 12 and 18 months. The primary outcome (at 3 months) was the total tic severity score (TTSS) on the YGTSS. Secondary outcomes included measures of tics (parent tic questionnaire), general difficulties (strengths and difficulties questionnaire), mood and anxiety (moods and feelings questionnaire and Spence Child Anxiety Scale), global functioning (Children’s Global Assessment Scale, Clinical Global Impressions-Improvement), adverse events, need for further treatment, treatment credibility and satisfaction and the Child and Adolescent Version of the Gilles de la Tourette Syndrome Quality of Life Scale. Quality of life [child health utility 9D (CHU9D)] and resource use (modified child and adolescent service use schedule) data were also collected for the economic evaluation. Follow-up assessments were completed online or via telephone/Webex videoconferencing (YGTSS). The trial internal pilot evaluated recruitment rate, engagement with the intervention and retention to the primary outcome at 9 months into the trial and the results were reported to the relevant oversight committees (Trial Steering Committees and Data Monitoring Committee). A sub-sample of parents and young people in the intervention arm, clinicians and therapists were interviewed to explore barriers/facilitators to implementation and refine the intervention for future use, which formed part of the mixed-methods process evaluation. The quantitative data for the process evaluation included intervention usage metrics, clinical and demographic trial data and therapist contacts. Intervention The intervention was delivered via Barninternetprojektet (Child Internet Project; Swedish digital platform) (BIP), a Swedish web-based digital platform. The BT intervention (ERP) was translated from the Swedish original intervention (BIP TIC), refined and adapted for UK use by our trial team. The active control intervention (psychoeducation) was created by our trial team. Both interventions consisted of 10 web-based chapters, designed to last 10 weeks. Participants had regular contact with a therapist during this time via messages that could be sent inside the treatment platform (resembling an email). The therapist’s role was to give specific feedback to motivate the patient and not to deliver therapeutic content. The young person and the parent/carer were provided with their own separate logins to the BIP platform. For both the intervention and the comparator, treatment completion was defined as completion of the first four child chapters. Results The trial recruited and retained participants exceeding the pre-specified criteria for the internal pilot and therefore proceeded to the full trial. In total 445 candidates signed up to the study and were assessed for eligibility, of which 221 potential participants were excluded (90 did not meet inclusion criteria, 84 declined to participate and 47 were unable to contact family). This meant 224 participants were enrolled and randomly assigned (1 : 1) to either the ERP BT group (n = 112) or psychoeducation group (n = 112). The characteristics of the two groups were similar at baseline. The enrolled patients were mostly male (n = 177; 79%) and of white ethnicity (n = 195; 87%). Only 13% of participants were receiving tic medication. Adherence to the intervention was good in 99 (88%) of the 112 participants in the ERP group, and 105 (94%) of the 112 participants in the psychoeducation group were classified as treatment completers (i.e. completing at least the first four chapters). Retention to the primary outcome at the 3-month primary end point (90%) and 6-month follow-up (> 80%) was excellent. Retention to the primary outcome measure remained high at 12 months (81% in both arms) and 18 months (> 79% in both arms). The primary analysis showed that participants in the ERP group [16% reduction, standard deviation (SD) 1.1] had a greater decrease in tics than those in the psychoeducation group (6% reduction, SD 1.0) at 3 months (primary end point). The estimated mean difference in YGTSS-TTSS change between the groups adjusted for baseline and site was −2.29 points [95% confidence interval (CI) −3.86 to −0.71] in favour of ERP, with an effect size of −0.31 (95% CI −0.52 to −0.10). This effect was sustained at 6 months, with a mean decrease of 6.9 points (24%, SD 1.2) in the ERP group versus 3.4 points (12%, SD 1.0) in the psychoeducation group. For phase 2, participants in the ERP group continued to have a greater decrease in tics than the control group. The estimated mean difference in YGTSS-TTSS between groups adjusting for baseline and site at 12 months was −2.64 points (95% CI −4.48 to −0.79), with an effect size of −0.36 (95% CI −0.61 to −0.11), at 18 months it was −2.01 points (95% CI −3.86 to −0.15), with an effect size of −0.27 (95% CI −0.52 to −0.02), in favour of the ERP group. In addition, extended follow-up showed those receiving online ERP compared with online psychoeducation had reduced scores for low mood and anxiety at 12 and 18 months and superior tic-specific quality of life, with the largest effects seen at 18 months. The direct cost of the intervention was £155 per person, including £104.57 for the online platform, supervision and training and a mean variable cost of £50.43 per participant for therapist time in the trial. At 18 months, using proxy parent-completed CHU9D responses, there were a mean additional 0.040 (95% CI −0.004 to 0.083) quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) per participant in the ERP group compared with psychoeducation, with an addition mean cost per participant of £662 (95% CI −£59 to £1384). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio in the primary analysis was £16,708 per QALY gained from a health and social care cost perspective at 18 months. In the 10-year long-term decision model, online ERP cost £537 less per participant than face-to-face BT and resulted in 0.02 fewer QALYs. Two serious adverse events (SAEs) occurred (hospital attendance due to one ‘collapse’ and one ‘tic attack’), both in the active control psychoeducation group, neither of which were related to the study intervention. The process evaluation found that the ERP intervention was implemented with high fidelity, and participants found the intervention acceptable and satisfactory. Engagement was high, with child participants completing an average of 7.5/10 chapters and 99/112 (88.4%) participants completing the minimum of the first four chapters (the predefined threshold for effective dose). Parental engagement was the only significant independent predictor of child engagement. Improvement in tic severity and overall clinical condition was not moderated by the relationship between demographic or baseline clinical factors and engagement and no mediators were found. However, level of parental engagement was associated with overall clinical improvement, and this relationship was illuminated by the qualitative data. Conclusion Implications for health care The findings demonstrate that online, therapist-supported ERP for young people with chronic tic disorders is clinically effective at reducing tic severity. Therefore, this is an efficient public mental health approach to supporting young people with tics. The intervention can be delivered at lower cost than standard face-to-face BT and may also result in improved service efficiencies, allowing a greater number of young people to access evidence-based care. Future research implications Further ‘field trials’ should be conducted to explore the clinical and service implications of delivering the intervention in real-world settings. Given that online interventions are context dependent, exploring the validity of these findings in different cultures/countries is important. Future research should explore where online, therapist-supported ERP best fits in the tic disorder care pathway and how online and face-to-face therapy can be best combined (e.g. non-responders to online ERP are ‘stepped up’ to face-to-face therapy). Trial registrations This trial is registered as ISRCTN70758207 and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03483493). The trial is now complete. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Technology Assessment programme (project number 16/19/02) and will be published in full in Health and Technology Assessment; Vol. 27, No. 18. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Background Negative symptoms are typically observed in people with schizophrenia and indicate a loss or reduction of a normal function (e.g. reduced motivation and affect display). Despite obstructing people’s recovery, intervention development receives limited attention. Objectives This study evaluates, for the first time, the feasibility and acceptability of a novel Virtual Reality Supported Therapy for the Negative SympToms of Psychosis. Design This is a single (rater)-blind randomised study with two conditions (Virtual Reality Supported Therapy for the Negative SympToms of Psychosis plus treatment as usual vs. treatment as usual alone) recruiting people with schizophrenia experiencing debilitating negative symptoms. Assessments are at baseline and at 3-month postrandomisation. Setting Psychosis outpatient clinics. Main outcome measures The prespecified primary outcome is participants’ goal attainment, and secondary outcomes are negative symptoms and functioning. The study assesses feasibility and acceptability parameters including recruitment, eligibility, treatment adherence and retention. Acceptability is evaluated qualitatively using a post-therapy feedback interview and data analysed through thematic analysis. Therapy effect on outcomes is estimated using intention-to-treat principles. Results The study recruited its prespecified target of 30 participants (15 randomised to Virtual Reality Supported Therapy for the Negative SympToms of Psychosis). Two participants in each therapy arm were either ‘lost at follow-up’ or discontinued the trial. Therapy engagement for those randomised to Virtual Reality Supported Therapy for the Negative SympToms of Psychosis was appropriate and research procedures were considered feasible. Nine participants took part in the acceptability interview and described the therapy and virtual reality procedures as positive and useful. There were 2 serious adverse events for participants randomised to treatment as usual and 11 adverse events (7 in the Virtual Reality Supported Therapy for the Negative SympToms of Psychosis group and 4 in the treatment-as-usual group). Adverse events were not related to research and therapy procedures. Preliminary analysis suggested the therapy may have a large effect on participants’ goals and a possible effect on negative symptoms. Limitations The study was not able to evaluate the hypothesised mechanistic aspect of the therapy (i.e. reward learning) due to pandemic-imposed social distancing measures. The current study also did not have a follow-up assessment, and this limitation did not allow to assess possible change in intervention effect over time. Conclusion We showed that Virtual Reality Supported Therapy for the Negative SympToms of Psychosis is a feasible, acceptable and safe intervention. This therapy has the potential to support people with schizophrenia in achieving their recovery goals by reducing the burden of negative symptoms. The results of this study support further evaluation of Virtual Reality Supported Therapy for the Negative SympToms of Psychosis to assess its efficacy in an appropriately powered randomised controlled trial. Study registration The study protocol was pre-registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (identifier: NCT03995420). Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation (EME) programme, an MRC and NIHR partnership (NIHR-EME: 17/59/13). This will be published in full in Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation; Vol. 10, No. 6. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. Plain language summary Background Schizophrenia is one of the most severe and debilitating mental health conditions. Full recovery rates are low, and the illness burden is huge for those affected. Research suggests that negative symptoms reduce people’s recovery prospect. Negative symptoms include poor motivation, social withdrawal, difficulty in enjoying daily activities and reduced communication. These symptoms influence patients’ day-to-day functioning, and reports of patient groups have highlighted this as a key area for new treatment development. Aims To: (1) develop a novel virtual reality supported therapy (called Virtual Reality Supported Therapy for the Negative SympToms of Psychosis) targeting the negative symptoms of schizophrenia with the overall aim of improving recovery; (2) evaluate Virtual Reality Supported Therapy for the Negative SympToms of Psychosis for ease of use, acceptability and safety and estimate its potential benefits. Development work The Virtual Reality Supported Therapy for the Negative SympToms of Psychosis software and procedures were initially developed by the research team. This process included several feedback phases from different stakeholders including service users, clinicians and technology experts. The resulting therapy is a 12-session virtual reality supported intervention delivered by a psychologist. Evaluation work We used a controlled study design where half of the participants were offered Virtual Reality Supported Therapy for the Negative SympToms of Psychosis in addition to their usual treatment and the other half received usual treatment alone. The study recruited to target (30 participants) but took longer than anticipated to complete because of COVID-19 pandemic restrictions. Prior to random assignment, participants were assessed with measures of goal attainment, negative symptoms and functioning. Four participants did not complete the study (two in Virtual Reality Supported Therapy for the Negative SympToms of Psychosis and two in usual treatment alone). More than 80% of the participants in the therapy group received an appropriate number of therapy sessions. Interviews suggested that the therapy was considered acceptable and useful. Preliminary analysis suggested that the intervention had a positive effect on therapy recovery goals and negative symptoms. The research procedures were considered feasible. Implications and next steps The results of this study are encouraging and support further evaluation of this therapy through a randomised controlled trial to formally assess its efficacy. Scientific summary Background Schizophrenia is one of the most severe and debilitating mental health conditions. Full recovery rates are low, and the illness burden is huge for those affected. Negative symptoms (NS) are typically observed in people with schizophrenia and indicate a loss or reduction in normal functioning. NS include poor motivation, social withdrawal, difficulty in enjoying activities and reduced communication. These symptoms influence patients’ day-to-day functioning, and reports of patient groups have highlighted this as a key area for new treatment development. Despite obstructing people’s recovery, intervention development has received limited attention. Main barriers that have hampered development are the lack of clear therapy targets and poor adherence to interventions because of lack of motivation. In recent years research showed that people with NS are more sensitive to negative feedback and less sensitive to positive feedback. This may be a mechanism maintaining NS. Further, the use of digital technology in therapy delivery has the potential to make therapies more engaging and improve adherence. Virtual reality (VR), a form of computer-simulated immersive reality, may offer opportunities to improve engagement and therapy experience and reduce therapy motivational needs. Objectives Develop a novel virtual reality supported therapy [called Virtual Reality Supported Therapy for the Negative SympToms of Psychosis (V-NeST)] targeting the NS of schizophrenia with the overall aim of improving recovery. Evaluate V-NeST for ease of use, acceptability and safety and estimate its potential benefits. Methods Design This is a two-arm randomised controlled trial comparing V-NeST plus treatment as usual (TAU) to TAU alone. Participants were assessed at baseline and at 12 weeks postrandomisation (i.e. end of therapy for those randomised to V-NeST). The primary outcome was participants’ progress on personal recovery goals measured by the Goal Attainment Scale (GAS) at 12 weeks postrandomisation. Secondary outcomes were NS and functioning. Apart from the participants, the therapists and the trial principal investigator, all other study staff including outcome assessors and the trial statistician were blind to trial arm allocation, until primary analysis completion. Ethical approval and protocol registration Study procedures were reviewed and approved by the London Camberwell and St. Giles NHS ethics committee (approval number 19/LO/0830). The study protocol was pre-registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (identifier: NCT03995420). Randomisation Consented participants were randomised using a web-based randomisation service at the UKCRC registered King’s Clinical Trials Unit. Randomisation used variable block size (i.e. 2, 4 and 6) with equal allocation. Participants Participants were recruited from community mental health teams, which are part of the South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust. Inclusion criteria: (1) currently under the care of a community psychosis services; (2) older than 18 years; (3) in a stable clinical condition; (4) with a documented episode of psychosis (e.g. first-episode psychosis) and/or a diagnosis of schizophrenia; (5) no current episode or history of epilepsy (as it is a contraindication for VR); (6) experiencing disabling NS as identified by care staff. Exclusion criteria: (1) having a comorbid organic condition affecting their behaviour; (2) severe learning disability; (3) insufficient communication skills for consenting and undertaking the research assessment and therapy. Measures The primary outcome of this study was GAS, which is a structured measure of personal recovery goals. The following measures were secondary outcomes: The Clinical Assessment Interview for Negative Symptoms, which is an interviewer-based assessment of NS. The self-evaluation of negative symptoms, which provides an assessment of NS from the participant’s perspective. The Work and Social Adjustment Scale was used to assess functioning. The mechanistic elements of the intervention were assessed using the Effort Expenditure for Reward Task and the Wisconsin Card Sorting Task. The following measures were used to characterise the sample: The Psychotic Symptom Rating Scales to assess the positive symptoms of psychosis. The Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale to assess anxiety and depression. The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale to assess self-esteem. The digit span to assess working memory and the Trail Making (A and B) to assess processing speed and executive function. Acceptability Participants randomised to V-NeST were invited to participate in a feedback semistructured interview assessing acceptability. The interview asked questions in relation to the therapy and assessment procedures, use of VR and asked suggestions for therapy and research procedures improvements. All interviews were recorded and transcribed. Service users involvement People experienced in using mental health services were consulted at different stages of this study, including the initial discussions on study procedures, to revise wording on the study information sheet and consent forms and for feedback on VR development. Service users were part of the trial management group and supported the interpretation and dissemination of the results and are also authors on this report. Sample size On the basis of previous research and recommendations from our lead statistician, we have considered a sample size of 30 participants to be adequate for obtaining reliable feasibility parameter estimates. And on the basis of previous similar studies conducted on our site, we have estimated for a dropout rate of 20% over the study period. Feasibility evaluation The feasibility of the trial procedures was examined using proportions and exact Clopper Pearson’s 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for assessments of feasibility and acceptability in terms of recruitment, consent and availability for screening, eligibility, availability for baseline assessment and randomisation, treatment retention and follow-up assessments, and availability and consent to be approached by a research therapist. Explorative treatment effect estimate These analyses followed the intention-to-treat principle, with data from all participants who took part in the study considered. Clinical outcomes were analysed using a linear regression model with data collected from all participants irrespective of whether they attended the intervention or not. Treatment differences with 95% CIs at follow-up are presented. In addition, standardised effect sizes (Cohen’s d calculated as the adjusted mean difference between treatment arms estimates divided by the within-groups pooled standard deviation) with 95% CIs will be presented. Our main aim was to estimate the likely range of intervention effects at post-treatment by assessing 95% CIs of the treatment effects. Acceptability evaluation Thematic analysis was used to analyse the post-therapy feedback interview transcripts. This explored participants’ experiences of receiving the therapy and taking part in this research study. Emergent themes were identified by one researcher and then the themes were reviewed and coded by four members of the team including service users with relevant lived experience. Results Recruitment and retention A total of 190 people were assessed for eligibility of which 160 were excluded: 39 people declined to participate, 44 were not contactable and the remaining 77 people did not meet inclusion criteria. Thus 30 participants were assessed at baseline and randomised into V-NeST plus TAU (N = 15; 50%) or TAU alone (N = 15; 50%). Out of these 30 participants, 29 received the allocated treatment (14 participants received V-NeST plus TAU and 15 participants received TAU alone). Four participants did not provide data at follow-up; they either were ‘lost at follow-up’ (V-NeST: N = 1 and TAU alone: N = 2) or discontinued the study (V-NeST: N = 1). All 30 participants were considered for the primary analyses. In the treatment arm, 14 out of 15 participants attended at least 1 therapy session with an average of 9.7 (standard deviation = 3.77, range 1–12) sessions. Two participants did not receive the minimum therapy dose of six sessions and completed one and four therapy sessions, respectively. Assessment completion All participants completed all clinical outcome measures (primary and secondary) at the baseline, while 76% of the participants completed the mechanistic outcomes. At follow-up, data completion for the primary and secondary outcome ranged between 86% and 100%. The completion rate for the mechanistic measure was 26%. Adverse events There were two serious adverse events (from two participants) and 11 adverse events (AEs) recorded in this study. AEs were not considered linked to the therapy or the research procedures. Acceptability evaluation Nine out of fifteen participants in the intervention arm of the trial were interviewed. Themes emerging from the interview were as follows: (1) therapy contributing to personal goals; (2) impact of pandemic-imposed restrictions on recovery; (3) debilitating nature of NS; (4) value of using virtual reality; (5) feedback on therapy procedures and suggestions for improvements. Treatment effect estimate The results of linear regression model analyses with the clinical outcome as the dependent variable, group as categorical independent variables and baseline value of outcome as a covariate showed that V-NeST had a large treatment effect on therapy goals [Cohen’s d = 1.48 (95% CI 0.61 to 2.35)]. The treatment effects of main secondary outcomes were smaller and all favouring V-NeST but with large CIs. Conclusions V-NeST demonstrated good acceptability and feasibility parameters particularly considering this study involved participants with severe and disabling levels of NS. The therapy procedures were considered acceptable, and the VR aspects were well tolerated and found to be engaging. Several therapy features were suggested for revision, including ways of interacting with the virtual environment (e.g. hands movements) and some therapy components (e.g. making psychoeducation more engaging). Only one participant had tried VR before, and most had limited digital technology skills. This was not a barrier to therapy use and the VR proved intuitive and easy to learn. The feasibility of the research procedure was also good with most research procedures being well tolerated by all participants. The study recruited to target (30 participants) but considered 190 referrals to meet its target. This means approximately one in six of the people referred was able to take part in the trial. While this study had comprehensive inclusion criteria, there is consensus that recruiting people with NS in research studies may be complex. However, we proved that it is possible and that once participants entered the trial, we retained more than 80% of those randomised to treatment. The explorative analysis on the prespecified primary outcome suggested that the intervention may be helpful in supporting people’s recovery goals. This outcome was chosen as this was what service users suggested to be the most valuable. This result is encouraging and taken together with the acceptability and feasibility findings supports further development and evaluation of this therapy. Future steps for developing V-NeST will include the modification of the VR software and therapy procedures in line with the feedback received from participants. A formal evaluation of efficacy will also require an appropriately powered trial. A future evaluation should also consider the cost-efficacy of this intervention and how it may be implemented in clinical settings (e.g. therapist training or access to VR). The development and evolution of digital therapies has enormous potential to reduce the impact of NS on recovery in people with schizophrenia. There is the promise of better and more engaging therapies coupled with the prospect of these being easier to deliver for services. Study registration The study protocol was pre-registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (identifier: NCT03995420). Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation (EME) programme, an MRC and NIHR partnership (NIHR-EME: 17/59/13). This will be published in full in Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation; Vol. 10, No. 6. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Background A balloon spacer is a relatively simple addition to an arthroscopic debridement procedure for irreparable rotator cuff tears. Objective To evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of a subacromial balloon spacer for individuals undergoing arthroscopic debridement for irreparable rotator cuff tears. Design A multicentre participant-and assessor-blinded randomised controlled trial comparing arthroscopic debridement with the InSpace® (Stryker, Kalamazoo, MI, USA) balloon to arthroscopic debridement alone, using a novel adaptive design. Pretrial simulations informed stopping boundaries for two interim analyses, using outcome data from early and late time points. Setting A total of 24 NHS centres. Participants Adults with a symptomatic, irreparable rotator cuff tear for whom conservative management had been unsuccessful. Interventions Arthroscopic debridement of the subacromial space plus insertion of the InSpace balloon compared with arthroscopic debridement alone. Main outcome measures Oxford Shoulder Score at 12 months. Results A predefined stopping boundary was met at the first interim analysis. Recruitment stopped with 117 participants randomised. We obtained primary outcome data on 114 participants (97%). The mean Oxford Shoulder Score at 12 months was 34.3 in the debridement-only group (59 participants of 61 randomised) and 30.3 in the debridement with balloon group (55 participants of 56 randomised; mean difference: −4.2; 95% confidence interval −8.2 to −0.26; p = 0.037). There was no difference in safety events. In the cost-effectiveness analysis, debridement-only dominated with a probability of

Randomised controlled trials are challenging to deliver. There is a constant need to review and refine recruitment and implementation strategies if they are to be completed on time and within budget. We present the strategies adopted in the United Kingdom Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening, one of the largest individually randomised controlled trials in the world. The trial recruited over 202,000 women (2001–5) and delivered over 670,000 annual screens (2001–11) and over 3 million women-years of follow-up (2001–20). Key to the successful completion were the involvement of senior investigators in the day-to-day running of the trial, proactive trial management and willingness to innovate and use technology. Our underlying ethos was that trial participants should always be at the centre of all our processes. We ensured that they were able to contact either the site or the coordinating centre teams for clarifications about their results, for follow-up and for rescheduling of appointments. To facilitate this, we shared personal identifiers (with consent) with both teams and had dedicated reception staff at both site and coordinating centre. Key aspects were a comprehensive online trial management system which included an electronic data capture system (resulting in an almost paperless trial), biobanking, monitoring and project management modules. The automation of algorithms (to ascertain eligibility and classify results and ensuing actions) and processes (scheduling of appointments, printing of letters, etc.) ensured the protocol was closely followed and timelines were met. Significant engagement with participants ensured retention and low rates of complaints. Our solutions to the design, conduct and analyses issues we faced are highly relevant, given the renewed focus on trials for early detection of cancer. Future work There is a pressing need to increase the evidence base to support decision making about all aspects of trial methodology. Trial registration ISRCTN-22488978; ClinicalTrials.gov-NCT00058032. Funding This article presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme as award number 16/46/01. The long-term follow-up UKCTOCS (2015 20) was supported by National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR HTA grant 16/46/01), Cancer Research UK, and The Eve Appeal. UKCTOCS (2001–14) was funded by the MRC (G9901012 and G0801228), Cancer Research UK (C1479/A2884), and the UK Department of Health, with additional support from The Eve Appeal. Researchers at UCL were supported by the NIHR UCL Hospitals Biomedical Research Centre and by the MRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL core funding (MC_UU_00004/09, MC_UU_00004/08, MC_UU_00004/07). The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR, or the UK Department of Health and Social Care. Plain language summary Randomised controlled trials help us decide whether new health-care approaches are better than those in current use. To successfully complete these on time and within budget, there is a constant need to review and revise the procedures used for delivering various aspects such as invitation, enrolment, follow-up of participants, delivery of the new test, data collection, and analysis. We report on the processes used in the United Kingdom Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening, one of the largest such trials. The United Kingdom Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening enrolled over 202,000 women (2001–5), delivered over 670,000 yearly screens (2001–11) and followed all participants until 2020. Key to our successful completion were the involvement of senior investigators in day-to-day running of the trial, a pre-emptive approach to issues, a willingness to innovate, and the use of technology. Our underlying ethos was that trial participants should always be at the centre of all our processes. We ensured that they were able to always contact either their local or the central team for clarifications and rescheduling of appointments. To facilitate this, we shared participant contact details (with consent) with both teams. We built a comprehensive electronic system to manage all aspects of the trial. This included online forms that the teams completed in real time (resulting in an almost paperless trial) and systems to check and manage trial processes and track blood samples. We automated key steps such as checking whether participants were eligible, assigning correct action based on results of screening tests, scheduling appointments and printing letters. As a result, all participants were treated as set out in the trial plan. Our engagement with participants ensured that they continued participating and we had a low rate of complaints. We faced issues with regard to our initial trial design and the way we planned to analyse the data. We feel that our solutions are highly relevant, especially as there is a renewed focus on trials for early detection of cancer.

Background Peripheral arterial disease is common and associated with increased cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. While patients with peripheral arterial disease are known to benefit from supervised exercise therapy, it is not always available. Neuromuscular electrical stimulation devices may offer a similar benefit. A randomised controlled trial was required to ascertain whether such devices can benefit patients who receive supervised exercise therapy and those who do not. Objective(s) The primary objective was to assess the mean difference in absolute walking distance at 3 months in intermittent claudication patients receiving either a neuromuscular electrical stimulation device and local standard care (intervention), or local standard care alone (control). Design A pragmatic, multicentre, randomised controlled trial stratified by centre. Setting Secondary-care National Health Service hospitals in the United Kingdom. Participants Patients aged ≥18 years, with a diagnosis of intermittent claudication according to the Edinburgh Claudication Questionnaire and ankle–brachial pressure index (or stress test), without contraindications to neuromuscular electrical stimulation were deemed eligible to partake. Interventions Participants were randomised 1 : 1 to either local standard care or local standard care and neuromuscular electrical stimulation. Due to the nature of the intervention, it was unfeasible to blind the research nurse or participant to the study allocation. Main outcome measures The primary outcome measure was absolute walking distance measured by treadmill testing at 3 months. Secondary outcomes included change in initial claudication distance, quality of life, compliance with interventions and haemodynamic assessments. Results Two hundred patients underwent randomisation, with 160 patients having analysable primary outcome data for the intention-to-treat analysis intervention (n = 80); control (n = 80). As the data were right-censored, a Tobit regression model was used to analyse the primary outcome, utilising the square root of the absolute walking distance to accommodate the skewed data. However, as this made the data difficult to interpret, a Tobit regression model using raw absolute walking distance data was used as well. Neuromuscular electrical stimulation improved the difference in absolute walking distance at 3 months but this was not statistically significant (square root of absolute walking distance: 0.835 units, 95% confidence interval −0.67 to 2.34 units; p = 0.28/absolute walking distance raw data: 27.18 m, 95% confidence interval −26.92 to 81.28 m; p = 0.323). Supervised exercise therapy participants showed a markedly improved absolute walking distance compared with patients receiving best medical therapy only at 3 months (square root of absolute walking distance: 3.295 units 95% confidence interval 1.77 to 4.82; p < 0.001/absolute walking distance raw data: 121.71 m, 95% confidence interval 67.32 to 176.10; p ≤ 0.001). Neuromuscular electrical stimulation significantly improved absolute walking distance at 3 months for mild claudicants (square root of absolute walking distance: 2.877 units, 95% confidence interval 0.51 to 5.25; p = 0.019/absolute walking distance raw data: 120.55 m, 95% confidence interval 16.03 to 225.06; p = 0.03) compared to the control arm. This was an unplanned (post hoc) analysis. There were no clear differences in mechanistic measurements between the two treatment groups over the follow-up period. Serious adverse events were evenly reported between the two groups; all being classified as either not related or unlikely to be related to the study device. Limitations Absolute walking distance was used as the primary outcome measure; there was a large range of baseline distances in both groups with right-skewed distribution. We did not stratify by baseline absolute walking distance for the primary outcome analysis. Additionally, only 160 patients had analysable primary outcome data due to missing treadmill data. Conclusions Supervised exercise therapy is an effective treatment for intermittent claudication. Neuromuscular electrical stimulation appears to be beneficial as an adjunct to supervised exercise therapy and on its own in mild claudicants. Future work Further studies are needed to confirm the effectiveness of neuromuscular electrical stimulation in combination with supervised exercise therapy, and in mild to moderate claudicants in a larger sample size. Study registration This trial is registered as ISRCTN18242823. Funding This project was funded by the Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation (EME) Programme, a Medical Research Council (MRC) and National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) partnership (project number 15/180/68). This will be published in full in Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation; Vol. 10, No. 2. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. Infrastructure support for this research was provided by the NIHR Imperial Biomedical Research Centre (BRC) (with others, e.g. NIHR Imperial CRF, Imperial College ECMC, NIHR Imperial PSTRC, NIHR London MIC, etc.). Plain language summary Why did we conduct this research? Patients with intermittent claudication present with pain in the lower limbs on exercising, relieved by rest. This negatively impacts on exercise tolerance and quality of life. Initially, such patients should be offered best medical therapy, including exercise advice, and a supervised exercise therapy programme. Supervised exercise therapy involves leg and feet exercises supervised by health-care professionals and, despite evidence favouring supervised versus unsupervised exercise, are underutilised in the United Kingdom. Therefore, there remains a significant difference between recommended standard care (best medical therapy and supervised exercise therapy) and ‘real-world’ standard care (best medical therapy only). Neuromuscular electrical stimulation devices have emerged as safe, portable and readily accessible, with some evidence suggesting they can improve outcomes, including pain-free walking distance and quality of life. This study investigated whether a neuromuscular electrical stimulation device improved the walking distance of patients with intermittent claudication compared to local standard care available (which may include supervised exercise therapy). What did we do? Two hundred patients diagnosed with intermittent claudication at 11 hospitals in England took part. A computer program randomly assigned half the patients to local standard care only, while the other half were given a neuromuscular electrical stimulation device which delivers electrical stimulation to leg and feet muscles through foot-pads, plus local standard care. What did we find? There was no clear difference in maximal walking distances between those who received a device and those who didn’t. However, neuromuscular electrical stimulation improved walking distances in patients who attended a supervised exercise therapy programme (although not significant), and clearly improved walking distances in those patients with a good baseline upper walking limit. Supervised exercise therapy significantly improved walking distances. What could be done next? Future research studies should further evaluate the effectiveness of neuromuscular electrical stimulation in combination with supervised exercise therapy, and in patients who have a good baseline walking distance in a larger sample of patients with intermittent claudication. Scientific summary Background Peripheral arterial disease (PAD) is a common condition that is predominantly caused by atherosclerosis, resulting in a reduced blood flow to the affected limb. It presents a significant global health burden, affecting over 200 million people worldwide. These individuals are at higher risk of other cardiovascular events and PAD itself has its own associated sequelae – for example, ulcer development. Intermittent claudication (IC) is the commonest symptom of PAD, patients experiencing leg pain while walking which is relieved by rest. This has a significant impact on exercise tolerance and quality of life. According to National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines, all patients suffering from IC should receive both first-line treatment of best medical therapy (BMT) (including exercise advice) and supervised exercise therapy (SET). SET is known to significantly improve absolute walking distance (AWD) in IC patients but despite these guidelines, recommended care for the first-line management of claudication is significantly below standard, largely due to lack of National Health Service capability. Without a demonstrable benefit of non-invasive strategies for the management of IC, there is an increased likelihood of invasive treatment options. Neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) is an emerging technology and such devices are readily accessible and can be used in the patient’s own home. Although some evidence of the efficacy of NMES in the management of patients with IC exists, in improving both functional and quality-of-life measures, further high-quality research is required. The NESIC (A Multicenter Randomised Controlled Study: Does Neuromuscular Electrical Stimulation Improve the Absolute Walking Distance in Patients with Intermittent Claudication (NESIC) compared to best available treatment?) study provides an evidence base for the efficacy of the REVITIVE IXTM (Actegy Health Ltd, Bracknell, UK) device in the non-invasive management of claudicants and assesses the cost-effectiveness of the device compared to SET. Objectives (list of research questions) 1.Primary objective: To assess the clinical efficacy of a NMES device as an adjunct to the local standard care available at the study randomisation sites to improve AWD in patients with IC. 2.Secondary objectives: a.To understand the underlying mechanisms for change in clinical and subjective outcomes in the form of lower-limb gross (duplex ultrasound) and superficial haemodynamic assessment (laser doppler flowmetry) b.To determine compliance with NMES device and SET programme c.To compare quality of life between those receiving local standard care alone and those receiving both local standard care and NMES d.To assess the actual cost-effectiveness of the NMES device compared to SET. Methods Design A multicentre, pragmatic, randomised clinical trial to compare the mean difference in AWD in patients with IC who are given NMES in addition to local standard care and those receiving local standard care only. Setting Eleven secondary-care NHS hospitals across England; a combination of centres with and without established provision of SET. Participants Between March 2018 and 17 March 2020, 200 participants were randomised into the NESIC trial. Follow-up was completed on 31 March 2021. Written informed consent was obtained from all participants, who then underwent eligibility assessments. Participants, as defined by the inclusion and exclusion criteria, were randomised 1 : 1 to either local standard care alone (standard care), or NMES and local standard care (intervention). Inclusion criteria •positive Edinburgh Claudication Questionnaire •ankle–brachial pressure index 30 mmHg, 40 seconds post 1 minute treadmill at 10% gradient, 4 km/hour) •able to give informed consent to participate in the trial after reading the patient information documentation •age ≥18 years. Exclusion criteria •severe IC requiring invasive intervention as determined by the treating clinician •critical limb ischaemia as defined by the European Consensus Document •comorbid disease prohibiting walking on a treadmill or taking part in SET •able to walk for longer than 15 minutes on the study treadmill assessment •have attended SET classes in the previous 6 months •popliteal entrapment syndrome •commenced vascular-symptom-specific medication in previous 6 months – for example, naftidrofuryl oxalate, cilostazol •pregnancy •any implanted electronic, cardiac or defibrillator device •acute deep vein thrombosis •broken or bleeding skin, including leg ulceration •peripheral neuropathy •recent lower-limb injury or lower back pain •already using a NMES device. Randomisation Randomisation (1 : 1) was web-based and hosted by Oracle Health Sciences InForm™ (Oracle®; Health Sciences, Austin, TX, USA) electronic data capture on an Oracle platform. Randomisation used random block size and was stratified by centres. Interventions The NMES device (REVITIVE IX) can be used in the patient’s own home. It delivers a 30-minute pre-programmed session of electrical stimulation to the lower-limb muscles through foot pads while the patient is in a seated position. The user controls the intensity of the impulses, and therapeutic benefit is deemed to occur when impulses are sufficient to cause contraction of the calf muscles, increasing venous return to the heart. The IsoRocker feature allows the device to tilt back and forth as the muscles contract and relax. The device is to be used for at least one 30-minute session daily (up to a maximum of six sessions) for 3 months (treatment period). Diabetic patients are to use the device for a minimum of two 30-minute sessions daily for the duration of the treatment period to better reflect the evidence supporting the diabetic patient group and improvement of their symptoms. A SET programme is usually led by a physiotherapist or allied health-care provider supervising exercise, usually within the physiotherapy gymnasium with equipment including a treadmill, steps and walking cones. SET classes usually involve a circuit of lower-limb exercises, for a minimum of 30 minutes per week, and usually over a 3-month duration. Outcomes and follow-up The primary outcome was AWD at 3 months, measured by treadmill testing. Secondary outcomes included quality of life over 12 months as measured by generic health-related quality of life tools, European Quality of Life 5-Dimensions 5-Level (EQ-5D-5L®) (EuroQol Group, Rotterdam, The Netherlands), Short-Form Health Survey-36 (SF-36®) (RAND Health Care, Santa Monica, CA, USA) and the intermittent claudication questionnaire; compliance with NMES and SET as measured against self-report participant diaries and device data loggers; change in initial claudication distance measured by treadmill testing; and haemodynamic assessments measured by duplex ultrasound and laser doppler flowmetry. Participants in both groups were followed up for 12 months post randomisation. In-person visits were performed at screening/baseline (randomisation), 3 months, 6 months and 12 months. The treadmill assessment (Gardner-Skinner protocol) and laser doppler flowmetry of the foot were completed at each visit and the duplex ultrasound was performed by a vascular scientist at baseline and 3 months only. Self-report health resource-use participant diaries were completed throughout the 12-month duration of the study. Additionally, the self-report exercise diaries were completed by all participants for 3 months or for the duration of the SET programme, and the device compliance diaries were completed by participants randomised to NMES for the duration of the treatment period. A device experience questionnaire was completed at 3 months for participants in the NMES arm of the trial. The quality-of-life questionnaires were administered at baseline and each follow-up either in person, via the telephone or via post. Participant follow-up is summarised in Appendix 1. Due to the COVID-19 crisis, a substantial amendment was submitted to Ethics in April 2020 to allow all follow-up visits to take place remotely (i.e. over the telephone completely or in combination with postal questionnaires) in the event that the participant was unable to attend in clinic or the site was unable to accommodate the on-site visit. Missed (physical) assessments as a result of a remote visit were rescheduled at a later date as a separate on-site visit, where possible. If an on-site visit was rescheduled at a later date, all quality-of-life questionnaires that were completed remotely were repeated at the on-site visit. Results (research findings) Two hundred participants underwent randomisation and 160 were included in the intention-to-treat primary analysis [intervention (n = 80); control (n = 80)]. NMES improved AWD in patients with IC following the 3-month treatment period but this was not statistically significant [square root of AWD: 0.835 units, 95% confidence interval (CI) −0.67 to 2.34; p = 0.276/AWD raw data: 27.18 m, 95% CI −26.92 to 81.28; p = 0.323]. Participants who had access to a SET programme showed a clear improvement in AWD compared with patients who received BMT only at 3 months (square root of AWD: 3.295 units, 95% CI 1.77 to 4.82; p < 0.001/AWD raw data: 121.1 m, 95% CI 67.32 to 176.10; p < 0.001). Improvements in the AWD at 3 months were seen when NMES was used in combination with SET, but this was not significant (square root of AWD: 1.724 units, 95% CI −0.56 to 4.01; p = 0.137/AWD raw data: 64.26 units, 95% CI −20.03 to 148.54; p = 0.13). NMES significantly improved AWD at 3 months for patients who could walk for more than 340 m at baseline (square root of AWD: 2.877 units, 95% CI 0.51 to 5.25; p = 0.019/AWD raw data: 120.55 m, 95% CI 16.03 to 225.06; p = 0.03) compared to the control arm. Mechanistic findings of the laser doppler flowmetry found no clear differences in blood flux between the two treatment groups over the 12-month follow-up period, nor any significant differences in volume flow or time average mean velocity (duplex ultrasound) groups at 3 months. Serious adverse events (n = 29) were reported in 24 participants, with all events being classified as either not related or unlikely to be related to the study device. The number of SAEs in the treatment arm was 13 and 16 in the control arm. Most of the events required hospitalisation; there were four deaths. Conclusions The results of the NESIC trial indicate that SET is the most effective treatment option for patients with IC. Although not significant, NMES improves walking distances when used in combination with a SET programme, and significantly improves AWD in mild claudicants. Implications for health care Findings from this trial suggest that all IC patients should have access to a SET programme and changes to such programmes may need to be made to encourage and/or retain participants. NMES may be an effective adjunct to SET and in patients with a good baseline walking distance. Recommendations for research (numbered in priority order) 1.Randomised controlled trial of NMES as an adjunct to SET in IC patients stratified by baseline AWD, as the NESIC study showed promise of non-invasive effectiveness in mild and/or moderate claudicants at improving walking distances, but larger numbers are required to validate this finding. 2.Research to examine the poor patient motivation and adherence to SET, as SET is clearly an effective treatment option for claudicants as seen in this study and many other studies but uptake/compliance remains an issue. 3.Research to evaluate the long-term effectiveness of SET programmes on maximal walking distance (MWD) and secondary outcomes such as quality of life and long-term engagement in physical activity. The NESIC study showed the effectiveness of SET at 12 months at improving AWD but longer-term follow-up is required to evaluate whether this is sustained years later. Previous studies have shown mixed results on the impact of SET on other outcomes, such as quality of life, and therefore further research is required. Study registration This trial is registered as ISRCTN18242823. Funding This project was funded by the Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation (EME) Programme, a Medical Research Council (MRC) and National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) partnership (project number 15/180/68). This will be published in full in Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation; Vol. 10, No. 2. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. Infrastructure support for this research was provided by the NIHR Imperial Biomedical Research Centre (BRC) (with others, e.g. NIHR Imperial CRF, Imperial College ECMC, NIHR Imperial PSTRC, NIHR London MIC, etc.).

Background Tongue-tie can be diagnosed in 3–11% of babies, with some studies reporting almost universal breastfeeding difficulties, and others reporting very few feeding difficulties that relate to the tongue-tie itself, instead noting that incorrect positioning and attachment are the primary reasons behind the observed breastfeeding difficulties and not the tongue-tie itself. The only existing trials of frenotomy are small and underpowered and/or include only very short-term or subjective outcomes. Objective To investigate whether frenotomy is clinically and cost-effective to promote continuation of breastfeeding at 3 months in infants with breastfeeding difficulties diagnosed with tongue-tie. Design A multicentre, unblinded, randomised, parallel group controlled trial. Setting Twelve infant feeding services in the UK. Participants Infants aged up to 10 weeks referred to an infant feeding service (by a parent, midwife or other breastfeeding support service) with breastfeeding difficulties and judged to have tongue-tie. Interventions Infants were randomly allocated to frenotomy with standard breastfeeding support or standard breastfeeding support without frenotomy. Main outcome measures Primary outcome was any breastmilk feeding at 3 months according to maternal self-report. Secondary outcomes included mother’s pain, exclusive breastmilk feeding, exclusive direct breastfeeding, frenotomy, adverse events, maternal anxiety and depression, maternal and infant NHS health-care resource use, cost-effectiveness, and any breastmilk feeding at 6 months of age. Results Between March 2019 and November 2020, 169 infants were randomised, 80 to the frenotomy with breastfeeding support arm and 89 to the breastfeeding support arm from a planned sample size of 870 infants. The trial was stopped in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic due to withdrawal of breastfeeding support services, slow recruitment and crossover between arms. In the frenotomy with breastfeeding support arm 74/80 infants (93%) received their allocated intervention, compared to 23/89 (26%) in the breastfeeding support arm. Primary outcome data were available for 163/169 infants (96%). There was no evidence of a difference between the arms in the rate of breastmilk feeding at 3 months, which was high in both groups (67/76, 88% vs. 75/87, 86%; adjusted risk ratio 1.02, 95% confidence interval 0.90 to 1.16). Adverse events were reported for three infants after surgery [bleeding (n = 1), salivary duct damage (n = 1), accidental cut to the tongue and salivary duct damage (n = 1)]. Cost-effectiveness could not be determined with the information available. Limitations The statistical power of the analysis was extremely limited due to not achieving the target sample size and the high proportion of infants in the breastfeeding support arm who underwent frenotomy. Conclusions This trial does not provide sufficient information to assess whether frenotomy in addition to breastfeeding support improves breastfeeding rates in infants diagnosed with tongue-tie. Future work There is a clear lack of equipoise in the UK concerning the use of frenotomy, however, the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the procedure still need to be established. Other study designs will need to be considered to address this objective. Trial registration This trial is registered as ISRCTN 10268851. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment Programme (project number 16/143/01) and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 27, No. 11. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. The funder had no role in study design or data collection, analysis and interpretation. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care. Plain language summary Many mothers and babies experience difficulties in establishing breastfeeding. In some babies it is thought that their difficulties may be linked to a condition called tongue-tie, in which a piece of skin tightly joins the middle part of the underside of the tongue to the base of the baby’s mouth. This can be treated by an operation to divide the tight part/skin in the middle of the underneath of the tongue. We planned to carry out a trial of 870 babies to find out whether an operation together with breastfeeding support helps more mothers and babies with tongue-tie to continue breastfeeding until the baby is 3 months old compared to breastfeeding support on its own and whether the costs were different between the two groups of mothers and babies. We were only able to recruit 169 babies as the trial was stopped because of slow recruitment, changes to services in the COVID-19 pandemic and a high proportion of the babies in the breastfeeding support group going on to have an operation. There were no differences in the rate of breastfeeding at 3 months between the babies in the group who had an operation straightaway and those in the group that had breastfeeding support alone, or had an operation later. More than four in every five babies in both groups were still breastmilk feeding at 3 months. Three babies who had an operation, around 1 in 50 babies, had a complication of the operation (bleeding, scarring or a cut to the tube that makes saliva). Because of the small size of the study, we cannot say whether an operation to divide a tongue-tie along with breastfeeding support helps babies with tongue-tie and breastfeeding difficulties or has different costs. We will need to try different types of research to answer the question. Scientific summary Background Breastfeeding difficulties have been associated with many factors, from a societal to an individual level. Tongue-tie can be diagnosed in 3–11% of babies, with the variation in reported prevalence thought to relate to the use of different diagnostic or severity criteria. Up to half of babies with tongue-tie are reported to have breastfeeding difficulties, but the reported proportion is highly variable. Some studies report almost universal difficulties, and others report very few feeding difficulties that relate to the tongue-tie itself, instead noting that incorrect positioning and attachment are the primary reasons behind the observed breastfeeding difficulties and not the tongue-tie itself. In a UK survey, it was noted that management of tongue-tie in infants with breastfeeding difficulties was therefore highly variable across the country. This is coupled with highly variable provision of breastfeeding support, which can range from minimal to expert and intensive, and using a variety of different models including peer supporter, midwife and health visitor. A Cochrane review identified five prior randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of frenotomy including a total of only 302 infants. The trials are small and underpowered and/or include only very short-term or subjective outcomes, suggesting further robust evidence is needed. Hence there is considerable controversy regarding, not only the diagnosis and clinical significance, but also the management of tongue-tie. Current National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidance allows for the procedure, based on lack of safety concerns, but notes very limited evidence of efficacy. There is therefore a clear need for an assessment of the clinical- and cost-effectiveness of frenotomy for babies diagnosed with tongue-tie in the form of an adequately powered, pragmatic RCT, taking into account the diagnostic controversy and variation in practice. Objective To investigate whether frenotomy is clinically- and cost-effective to promote continuation of breastfeeding at 3 months in infants with breastfeeding difficulties diagnosed with tongue-tie. Methods Study design The FROSTTIE trial was a multicentre, RCT conducted in 12 infant feeding services in England. Participants Inclusion criteria Any infant aged